Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of OEIS sequences

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The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of OEIS sequences

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cliff Smith 18:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable list per WP:LISTN - no indication this list has been described elsewhere, in particular not at at oeis.org. So the compilation of the list is original research/synthesis. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a list of integer sequences that have their own Wikipedia entries and are included in the OEIS. So this list has a twofold criterion for inclusion of sequences, this was done to ensure that only notable sequences were included and to keep the article of manageable length. So it is obvious that this list may not be referenced/mentioned elsewhere or even at OEIS itself. But you will find plenty of sources for a more general article along the lines of List of Integer Sequences. Novonium (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though possibly rename List of integer sequences, using the criteria of inclusion in wikipedia and inclusion in OEIS as a sensible way, per User:Novonium, to keep the number of sequences maneagable. Dsp13 (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not an indiscriminate list of all entries in OEIS, but just those which have Wikipedia entries, and is a useful index. —Lowellian (reply) 20:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear and unambiguous inclusion criteria; useful navigation list. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep Far more valuable as a text-form list than as a category. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw nomination on reflection/reviewing the above comments. Still seems a highly subjective/impractical list to me (I think if all the articles with such sequences were included it would be a very long list) but I seem to be the only one who views it that way. So per the preceding comment best close this, and then perhaps someone can move it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:46, 27 July 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.