Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centered pentachoric number

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centered pentachoric number

[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)

No evidence that the term appears in the real world (other than in Wikipedia mirrors), or that the subject is notable. OEIS refers to it as "4-dimensional centered tetrahedral numbers", rather than "centered pentachoric numbers" or "centered pentatope numbers". OEIS is also not evidence of notability; absence from OEIS is evidence of absence of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my comments on article talk. There's nothing in Google Scholar under this name, and is mentioned only in passing by value in https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814412551_0010. The OEIS listing gives a book reference for a general formula of which this is a special case and no interesting properties of the sequence, only more-or-less mechanical polynomial transformations. It's not one of the sequences labeled "nice" on OEIS. And we have no source at all for the title of the article. I don't think any of that adds up to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from article creator: I do agree that this is not a notable concept. Suggest to merge this into figurate number and list it in a new section on that page (perhaps rename the section Triangular numbers there to something more general and list it there). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I see no need to merge the content, brief as it is, anywhere. (FWIW, I did a quick test by temporarily removing it from {{Figurate numbers}} and {{Classes of natural numbers}}, and it looks like those account for all of the links to it.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Nothing really to merge to figurate number, that article looks like could be expanded, but adding only this would kind of a random piece of information - Nabla (talk) 01:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mentions except in Wikipedia mirrors. There are also two Google books sources that both give 404 errors. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2019 (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.