Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carol number (2nd nomination)

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. Daniel (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carol number

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Briefly mentioned in a MathWorld article and included in OEIS, which in my view do not amount to significant coverage. Also mentioned on the website PrimePages. See also the arguments made in the 2009 AFD (no consensus). Adumbrativus (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Adumbrativus (talk) 09:05, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is similar both in subject matter and in the sources found:

Comment The OEIS entries for both sequences call them "easy" and don't say "nice" [1][2]; per the meanings of the keywords, it seems like these particular OEIS entries aren't making a case for significance. XOR'easter (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both in the absence of published mathematical research on these topics. MathSciNet lists nothing on this topic. Google Scholar lists a few but they appear to mostly mention the topic in-passing and be unpublished or in low-quality or predatory journals. My comment from the last AfD still seems relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Provided sources are weak and the names are odd, but I am impressed by the fact that both topics have about 10 articles each in other language entities of Wikipedia, some even considerably longer than the English ones. While the other entities have different guidelines, the core principles and goals (to document the past and present knowledge of the world in a neutral and accessible way) are the same, so I wonder if all those contributors to these articles have been misled into thinking this would be important enough to spend considerable amounts of their time to document these numbers in this encyclopedia. Obviously, they must have found it worth the inclusion. Yeah, other stuff exists, but at least for me, non-mainstream topics are often the most interesting ones to read and think about - often enough leading to new insights and ideas. Ideally, someone would bring by a more substantial source. But for as long as the math "as is" is correct and the article does not contain incorrect statements, I would rather have one weak article on a borderline topic too much included then some information (possibly interesting to some and boring to others) missing in this encyclopedia. Perhaps, there is also some value in the topic and article serving as a link between other (more notable) topics, thereby helping to provide a richer context or to ease navigation between other topics. People might run into these terms and wonder what they are, and even if the Wikipedia article would tell them that these numbers are not very important for most people, this is already an answer - better than having nothing on the topic at all and leaving readers puzzling. Therefore, I would give this the benefit of doubt. If it can't be kept, perhaps it can be merged into other more general articles. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both are vanity pages about recreational mathematics. These numbers haven't even been subject of a serious paper! Which wouldn't be sufficient for notability. What we have here is very thin gruel. It seems that this guy came up with these formulas to search for large primes, failed to find anything, and that's it. Tercer (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the reasoning of PrimeHunter in the last AfD, this does not clear the neologism bar for me. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Random bits of recreational mathematics that never even made it big in recreational-mathematics circles are probably not harmful to have around Wikipedia, but they're not really what this project is about, either. At the moment, I doubt they rise to the level of warranting mention in another article, and we'd need to reach that standard before we consider giving them articles of their own. XOR'easter (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not backed by mathematical research. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 16:20, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.