Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Removable prime


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  MBisanz  talk 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Removable prime

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Term made up by article creator. While the phenomenon exists, I can't find a single use of "removable prime" to describe it. Blackguard 17:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - this StackExchange posting identifies the phenomenon of prime numbers which remain prime if any digit is removed. OP inquires about a name for it, and truncatable prime is suggested although that's not quite the same thing (refers to removing one specific digit, not any digit). Wolfram has an article about that, but again only discusses removing either the leftmost or rightmost digit. There doesn't appear to be any academic work on this particular sequence of numbers, and as such there don't appear to be any reliable sources for the subject of this article, and that points to deletion. For the sequence, OEIS simply gives "primes remaining prime if any digit is deleted", and a commenter suggests these may be called "super-prime numbers" but that's already something different. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The use of a possibly inappropriate title isn't a reason to delete, if there can be notability in the subject. That's easily remedied by a move. I can't see this sequence of numbers being of any practical use, but much in maths is also of no practical use. It's certainly an interesting phenomenon that I'd never heard of, and it's set me wondering if there is an upper limit - but if no-one much else has been intrigued enough by it to work on it, my interest doesn't make it notable. Peridon (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. And, like most base-dependent number sequences, I don't think it's very interesting, in contrast to Peridon; besides, WP:ITSINTERESTING isn't a good reason for keeping an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wasn't using 'interesting' in the sense used by mathematicians - just in the sense of 'oddity'. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not a commonly used term, and the sequence is not particularly significant. πr2 (t • c) 05:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as there are no better convincing signs of keeping. SwisterTwister   talk  02:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Move: Not notable, at the very least not found anywhere else under that name crh23 (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, or instead merge See http://oeis.org/A034302. No, name is not recognised as far as I can tell.  A "thing" with no name can not be all that notable.  Merge as an addendum into Truncatable prime perhaps.  If kept the name would have to be Numbers n such that n remains prime if any digit is deleted! Aoziwe (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.