- 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. - Mailer Diablo 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No source found to alleged meaning. Other weak potential meanings mentioned at Talk:Euler prime. Possibly turn into poorly sourced or unsourced disambiguation page. PrimeHunter 15:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google Scholar search for the title phrase finds no support for the alleged meaning and only weak support for the alternative meanings on the talk page. Similarly a MathSciNet search for the phrase fuond only three occurrences, all relating to Euler's prime-generating polynomial. —David Eppstein 18:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm by no means a number theorist but the definition used on the page means that all pairs of primes that don't include 2 are trivially included by way of their arithmetic mean. Readro 21:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the argument here is that this is an arcane property, but that the definition is useful in creating interesting (i.e. hard-to-prove) number-theoretic problems. The way I read it this is simply a generalization of the twin, cousin, and sexy primes. So a twin-prime pair would be an Euler-1 prime pair, a cousin pair an Euler-2, etc. The unsolved problem in the second section is simply the Goldbach conjecture if p = q is allowed. It q > p were required, it would be a stronger form of the Goldbach conjecture, although I have no idea if it's an interesting one. And from the way it looks it's original research, since no one can find evidence of ongoing usage of the term in this definition, so for now Delete. ~ trialsanderrors 09:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 07:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. JSTOR and MathSciNet return nothing, nor does MathWorld. A single paper is returned by google scholar that mentions an 'Euler prime,' but since I can't read the whole thing (not that I tried terribly hard to find a way to do so) I can't even be sure that it's referring to the same thing. The article itself provides no references, nor any indication that references exist. Therefore this is unverifiable original research, and needs to be removed. --Sopoforic 13:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Google scholar result you probably refer to says "Euler prime E" (see e.g. [1]) about the specific Mersenne prime 231-1 = 2147483647 (proved prime by Euler in 1750), one of the weak "potential meanings" at Talk:Euler prime. PrimeHunter 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No loss. Charles Matthews 22:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or move to verified name. The article, itself, has some possible verifiability and notability, but the name does not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article says "Euler/symmetric primes constitute a Goldbach partition, which is defined as a pair of primes p,q that sum to an even integer. It would appear that all three terms are synonymous, the latter one seemingly most used in the literature".
- Before nominating, I created a redirect on Goldbach partition (a verified term) to Goldbach's conjecture. Maybe I should have mentioned that. I don't think Euler prime contains anything worth adding to Goldbach's conjecture, and if Goldbach partition gets its own article (I don't think it should) then it's also better to base on content in the current Goldbach's conjecture. PrimeHunter 15:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also interesting to note the edit history: In 2003 User:Rotem Dan included the conjecture in the second paragraph, tagging it as speculative in the edit summary. Shortly later s/he removed that part because of its speculative natue. Also also interesting to note is that the article has since been translated into French, Finnish and Chinese. So someone might want to inform those Wikis. ~ trialsanderrors 18:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. None of the other languages have a source or a talk page. I don't know procedure but I think they should be informed if the article is deleted with no known source. PrimeHunter 12:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, they seem to be direct translations from the en.wiki articles. No idea how to prod articles in Finnish though... ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We could just leave them a note creating their talk pages; somebody there reads English, if necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, they seem to be direct translations from the en.wiki articles. No idea how to prod articles in Finnish though... ~ trialsanderrors 20:02, 23 January 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.