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. Geschichte (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Van Eck's sequence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Declined PROD. I agree with the PRODder that this isn't a sufficiently notable topic for an article. The sources offered (on the talk page and in the article) basically boil down to an OEIS entry (for which Sloane was interviewed about in a Youtube vid) plus various WP:UGC. This doesn't seem to be enough, with no apparent serious study or even popular press accounts. Probably WP:TOOSOON at best. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this particular integer sequence is almost nonexistent in academic literature. The only coverage of it is in this conference proceedings about the Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences itself. There's no independent WP:GNG coverage either. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- I agree with the PROder and the nominator. Reyk _YO! 20:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Normally I would expect a sequence that OEIS names and tags as nice to be notable, but I can't find anything else about this in Google Scholar or MathSciNet (searching both for its name and for its OEIS index number). So we don't have the multiple in-depth sources required by WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked into this when I noticed it was PRODed, and I didn't find much about it — an OEIS entry, a few ancillary items, and various WP:UGC, as the nominator says. I've no objection to writing about it within some other article, if an appropriate place exists, but I don't think the coverage exists to make a wiki-notability case. XOR'easter (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above; no suitable merge/redirect target either Spiderone 21:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Appears to be "just another sequence" without any substantive scholarly discussion or interest beyond WP:UGC-type sources such as user-generated algorithms to generate terms. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Try looking up "Van Eck Sequence" at Bing.com and in the other links. Rather than the possessive. GIGO. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I had looked at both. Looking at the non-possessive form again right now, I still don't see anything significant besides the conference proceedings by Sloane. Otherwise just blogs, Math Stack Exchange, Numberphile, etc. — MarkH₂₁^talk 15:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I also searched by the OEIS number and didn't turn up anything additional. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2020 (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.