Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super-prime

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. Hut 8.5 11:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super-prime[edit]

Non-notable term with dictionary definition. A Google search [1] finds many different things called "super-prime" but none of them appear notable enough as an article subject, and our definition seems rare. The source is a programming exercise. I have also seen such primes called prime-index-prime, but not enough to be notable. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I'm not aware of any significance to this-- as defined here, super-primes are the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 11th, etc. prime numbers. Mandsford (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems kind of shallow, as mathematics goes, but I found an article on this sequence in a good journal (JACM), and OEIS calls this sequence "nice". I expanded the article to include this new information. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per David. Paul August ☎ 03:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, mention in a good journal, worthy of a mention here. J Milburn (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I mean, this is not great mathematics, but it's kind of a cute notion, and has generated some activity (as explained by David Eppstein). I would be leery of having a separate page for every single sequence in OEIS, but this looks like one of middling interest, maybe worth keeping and seeing how it develops. Hopefully, more could be added to the article, though—as is, it's rather skimpy. Turgidson (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After looking at the subject a bit more, and after making a couple of edits, I'm not sure this is the most appropriate name for the article: Prime-index primes seems more accurate and descriptive, or perhaps, Primes with prime subscripts (as in the original article by Dressler and Parker, and in the OEIS). One can also give a recursive definition of prime-...-prime index primes, and also palindromic-index primes, etc. Maybe it would make sense to rewrite the article from a more general point of view (various subsequences of primes, with indices given by some rule involving primes, or some property of numbers)? There are a couple of refs out there that I put in (Fernandez, OEIS), but it would be good to see first whether there is something more substantial (say, listed on MathSciNet, or available on the arXiv) before going out on a limb. Any suggestions? Turgidson (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep thanks to David Eppstein's work. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Can the "orphaned" template be removed? I don't understand why that is relevant and I'm not sure I care. (jarbarf) (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly going to be a Keep so I have added the section List of prime numbers#Super-primes with a link, and removed {{orphan}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2007 (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.