Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding highly composite numbers Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Finding_highly_composite_numbers

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. T. Canens (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finding highly composite numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested prod. This is a "how to" page with very poor sourcing - a mathematical equivalent of "here's my favourite apple pie recipe". No indication that these methods are notable or have produced any notable results. Wikipedia is not a textbook. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:HOWTO unless the algorithm (under some name) has become independently notable. Sources look like WP:SELFPUBLISH vios. composite numbers seems like it's about a notable topic, but has got similar problems with sources. Yakushima (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent sources. Not covered in neutral, reliable publications or websites. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the author of the article, I have to admit that it is partially my own work (although I later found that similar work has been done elsewhere). This is what makes it difficult to produce citations and references. However, I provided proof and reasoning for the algorithms and that should be enough for verification. I note that nobody has contested the mathematics behind them. I also have a Java implementation for the successive prime factors method (it's not very long) which produces the same results as what other people have on the net but I don't know where to put it (I'd be happy to email it to whoever is interested). One would think that for any group of numbers in mathematics, there is an obvious need for algorithms to find those numbers. There wasn't anything there, so I put something there which is mathematically solid. I am happy for it to be replaced with something better or more notable, but it seems a bit drastic to delete the whole article and leave a gaping hole behind. Nevertheless, it looks like I am getting a fair hearing and I will gracefully accept the decision of the umpires.Torkel1001 (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for both WP:HOWTO and WP:NOR. (Edit: As well as WP:N and WP:RS.) Nageh (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. The article is valuable, but is not encyclopedic.

--Cerebellum (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The main article on highly composite numbers is poorly referenced and seems to have OR issues of its own, so it's not surprising that it would spawn more OR. It would be appropriate to add a summary of published (in peer reviewed journals) algorithms for generating HCNs to that article, but this article doesn't seem to have that so I can't even suggest a merge.--RDBury (talk) 19:15, 11 February 2011 (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.