Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strictly non-palindromic number


 * 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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Strictly non-palindromic number

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The term "strictly non-palindromic number" does not appear to have significant coverage in peer-reviewed math papers, so it appears to fail WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I believe that OEIS counts as a reliable published source; its peer-review process is strict and multi-leveled. But that's only one and we need multiple sources. I couldn't find any others that cover this concept in depth and appear reliable (there are some random sources like that use the title phrase, apparently copied from Wikipedia; they aren't in-depth, are not reliable for mathematics, and anyway fail WP:CIRCULAR). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Only reference is an OEIS article that essentially shows the concept exists. Not enough WP:SIGCOV to warrant a WP:GNG pass.  Frank  Anchor  03:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete The OEIS by itself does not establish notability as it catalogs hundreds upon hundreds of non-notable sequences. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I would agree that this page is a non-essential type of math page. It's more a "having fun with numbers" kind of page, and is probably why it isn't referenced in any paper. But it doesn't mean someone isn't going to talk about these numbers in some distant future. Why delete an article already written that isn't wrong or bothering anyone? Sometimes OEIS descriptions are hard to read for the common people, and an wikipedia article on the subject is typically easier to digest. Dhrm77 (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dhrm77 Why delete an article already written that isn't wrong or bothering anyone? Because of WP:Notability: "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention." (even if there is nothing technically wrong with the contents itself). PatrickR2 (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to say that, even though it is not notable today, who is to say that in the future, a new fad about palindromic numbers is not going to start, making these notable. Then the article would have to be rewritten. That's double work and a complete waste of time. I would most likely not have written that article. But since it already exist, I would not be in favor or deleting it. Dhrm77 (talk) 21:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL PatrickR2 (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of notability. PatrickR2 (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * weak keep Has an OEIS entry with some discussion and also shows up in a 1989 paper of Richard Guy, ""Conway's RATS and other reversals" in American Mathematical Monthly which is a prominent math publication. Arguably this is enough to meet WP:RS since there are two reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: An OEIS source and a 1089 paper does not advance notability for a stand alone article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Palindromic number, where I think including a little content about this is on-topic and naturally fits in. Currently it has only a one-sentence mention there. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to Palindromic number where the subject matter might be relevant. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 5 November 2022 (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.