Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drome 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. WP:V concerns as well as consensus that this term fails notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drome numbers

[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)

No claim of significance, and no supporting literature outside of a bare-bones MathWorld entry — in fact this might actually be a MathWorld Nihilartikel. This would be a speedy-deletion candidate under A7 if not for that criterion's precise category requirements, and one might argue that it still is under A11. —Twice Nothing (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable dictionary definition. The term drome number isn't even used in the source - it only defines metadromes, plaindromes, nialpdromes and katadromes. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After searching Google and the original reference used in the article, I can find no sources (even passing mentions) suggesting that this term even exists - much less that it is notable. In that case, I would agree that this is possibly an A11 candidate. ComplexRational (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They do have OEIS sequence numbers (A023784, A023771, A023797, and A023757), but they all only cite MathWorld. I suspect the few mentions found in the literature of the terms (nialpdrome does get two Google Scholar hits, for example) are from people who took MathWorld at its word; other than that the concept is insignificant enough mathematically that the terms don't seem to have been widely adopted. Double sharp (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Our hexadecimal article used to mention the words "plaindromes", "nialpdromes", "metadromes", and "katadromes" with a citation to Martin Gardner's Sixth Book of Mathematical Diversions from "Scientific American" (p. 105), but the quoted page does not actually contain them. Double sharp (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An umbrella term for a handful of definitions that nobody has managed to make interesting. The OEIS entries refer to MathWorld, as mentioned above, and the MathWorld articles cite ... the OEIS entries. This has the look of a pet idea thought up by a recreational mathematician who really liked coining words. Nothing wrong with having that hobby, but this example of it just isn't encyclopedia material. Generally, I think our community sentiment is that merely having a MathWorld page is not enough to warrant an article here (example). XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2019 (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.