Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visible factor 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. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Visible factor number

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This sequence is not discussed in other independent reliable sources under either this name or another one, so lacks significant notability in the literature. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 19:49, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The article contains two references, one using this name, so the nomination statement is clearly incorrect. Notability may be in doubt, but we need a truthful rationale for deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page in its current state does not bring anything to the table compared to OEIS; and this seems to be one of the less interesting sequences on there. Unless we really need a stub for each sequence on OEIS, I don't see the point.  — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 21:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sequence being in OEIS is a minimal requirement, but that's basically all we have here.  It's in OEIS without a name, and in J. Rec. Math., presumably with a name and possibly some characteristics.  If it were mentioned, by name, in a paper not by the same author, it might be suitable.  As it is, I don't see it.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A single title-only non-OEIS reference is not good enough for WP:GNG. One more published journal paper by someone else on the same main subject might be enoughm but we don't even have that. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poking around on google suggests that once in a while someone turns this concept into a math competition problem for young students, and that otherwise it has never received any attention in reliable sources.  --JBL (talk) 20:08, 17 November 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.