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 redirect to Ulam spiral#Sacks spiral. Redirect, as the content is already there Tone 15:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sacks spiral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

The article appears to contain original research. It cites a web site, which is apparently maintained by someone who actively studies this topic, but there are no references to published sources. (An arxiv article is cited, but it does not seem to have appeared in a journal.) I was unable to find an independent, verified account of the invention of the Sacks spiral using Google; most hits are to material derived from the Wikipedia article, or to the aforementioned sites. Will Orrick (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you this was not original research on my part (if indeed that was what you were implying), it was something I ran across and thought was interesting. I agree that the article has not significantly improved since my version in May 2007 nor are there additional references that have come to light since then. So I dont oppose deleting this. dm (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't meant to imply anything like that. It's clear from the page history that you and the other main authors of the page are major Wikipedia contributors without any vested interest in this topic. The two major external sources of information on the Sacks spiral are Robert Sacks' own website (now commented out in the Wikipedia article) and the naturalnumbers.org site. The latter is promoting a certain point of view about prime numbers which, as far as I can tell, is a bit out of the mainstream. I recently deleted some material that seemed to derive directly from that page. Overall, I agree with your observation that no new references have come to light since the original version. Without additional, disinterested sources of information, it's going to be hard to improve the article or to add context. I agree with the suggestions of Reyk and Xxanthippe below that some of the material in the article be merged with Ulam spiral. Will Orrick (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Marginal keep as interesting but not widely sourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge with Ulam Spiral. Reyk _YO! 05:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

or merge, but it would be nice to keep the diagram. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge I went ahead and merged the text from here into the Ulam Spiral article. It only neeeds redirecting. Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I like the diagram, bothered by the lack of any additional info. It is not at all obvious to me whether or not the curves in this Saks spiral are isomorphic to the lines in the Ulam spiral. Are they? Aren't they? linas (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2010 (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.