Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory sequence

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 speedy delete. The clincher was when Hqb pointed out that this duplicates the content of Look-and-say sequence. If we assume bad faith, it's a blatant ripoff/hoax/otherwise vandalism (G3). If we assume good faith, then it's a duplicate topic, and the name is so unuseful that there's no point to redirect (A10). Either way, it's clear that there's no need for this article to continue to exist. —C.Fred (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory sequence

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

Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Finding no mention of the article title or the person the article claims it was named for in Google Scholar, Books, or web searches. RadioFan (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong delete. Original research with no indication of any coverage in reliable sources. Just barely enough context that I don't see it qualifying for speedy deletion, though. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In its current version this is probably a no-context speedy delete, there's not even anything that looks like a lead. Barring speedy, this is an easy delete for lack of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for lack of context; if not then just delete for notability, OR, etc. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as there is no assertion of notability. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 08:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (CSD A10) as duplicate of Conway's look-and-say sequence. No evidence that this has ever been known as the "Gregory sequence", so not even a redirect is appropriate. Hqb (talk) 09:14, 1 January 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.