Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ban 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ban number

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is a dictionary definition. A search has revealed nothing of interest to suggest that this article could become anything other than a dictionary definition. I don't think the subject is notable either Op47 (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete on grounds of notability. The CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics (Weisstein 2003) does contain a definition of "Eban Number", but that's the only source I could find, despite skimming search results for nearly 300 false positives. Weisstein, in turn cites a web page (http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/eisonline.html) that is currently 404. Cnilep (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 404 link in question is an old link to the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. Deltahedron (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the current OEIS: Eban, Iban, Oban, Uban, Bantu —Tamfang (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak and reluctant keep. Classification of numbers according to arbitrary features of their decimal representation is a staple of recreational mathematics – don't ask me why. —Tamfang (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd consider MathWorld and OEIS reliable sources; plus eban numbers are discussed in the CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics and in an academic paper. --Cyclopia^talk 13:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wolfram Mathworld and the CRC book are essentially the same source. —Tamfang (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the "academic paper" is in Journal of Recreational Mathematics. Deltahedron (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what doesn't make it academic? Recreational math is still math, it doesn't make it less rigorous. Notable mathematicians directed and contributed to it. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is more, what does make it academic? Is it peer-reviewed? Are the papers in it covered by Mathematical Reviews or Zentralblatt? Is it cited in academic sources? Deltahedron (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question. I indeed always believed that it was peer-reviewed, but I can't find proof of it. However it is indeed cited by academic sources: this paper for example is cited 25 times according to Gscholar; while some of these citations can be irrelevant or suspicious, some can be checked to be genuine, and seem to indicate the source is trustworthy. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some papers seem to pose questions or introduce ideas that are picked up in academic sources. But it is not reviewed by Zentralblatt [1]. Deltahedron (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some papers seem to pose questions or introduce ideas that are picked up in academic sources. - This, plus the qualified editorial board, seems more than enough to qualify it as a RS, whatever Zentralblatt thinks. If we add Mathworld/CRC/OEIS (counting them as 3,2 or 1 RS), we have enough for notability. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. A completely unreliable source can still pose problems or make assertions that others find worth investigating. The journal's own homepage [2] also makes it plain that it is not covered by Mathematical Reviews either. Where does the "qualified editorial board" claim come from? It's not listed at that web page. Deltahedron (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current editorial board is listed here; it includes several academics/researchers (e.g. Stephen Kahan, math faculty at Queens College CUNY; or Harry Lewis Nelson), plus it included in the past other notable mathematicians as Leo Moser. We do not question the reliability of dozens of much less qualified secondary sources, like every news media, I don't see why a recreational but still serious journal which is routinely cited by mathematicians in academic works shouldn't be enough for us. --Cyclopia ^talk 22:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks. Actually, you might note that the question was whether it is an academic source. News media, for example, might be reliable but they are hardly academic. Deltahedron (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still consider a source which is published by an academic publisher, with academics in its editorial board and that is referenced by academics in academic papers as an academic source indeed. Anyway, all what is needed for notability is that it is a reliable one, and this seems settled. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I consider a journal published by a commercial publisher which calls itself "Recreational" to be recreational. As far as notability is concerned, if the only even remotely academic reference is one recreational article in a recreational journal, then the case is far from settled. Deltahedron (talk) 07:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why a journal can't be about recreational stuff and academic at the same time. The two things are not mutually exclusive at all. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is clearly more than a "dictionary definition". As to notability, eban numbers certainly seem to be notable; other variants are borderline. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:15, 10 November 2012 (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.