Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finite promise games and greedy clique 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 10:00, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finite promise games and greedy clique sequences

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Only source is an email list, user generated content. AFAIK there exist no other sources or published work on this topic, as the author of the topic at hand (Harvey Friedman) primarily releases results through this email list. C7XWiki (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Mathematics. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 11:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided to indicate that anyone other than these games' creator has published any content about them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding any indications that the mathematics literature has picked up these concepts. We can't base an article entirely on mailing-list posts. (The links given in the article aren't even viewable outside of NYU, and searching found nothing usable.) XOR'easter (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Less notable even than the articles we sometimes see based on only a single recently-published primary source. This has no published sources at all and searching found none. Friedman is a recognized expert so the sources can be considered under WP:SPS but I don't think they contribute to notability. Quickly growing functions are one of the cruftier corners of Wikipedia's mathematics coverage and this article exemplifies that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2025 (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.