Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dirichlet prime

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. --Daniel Olsen 04:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dirichlet prime

Dirichlet prime (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Contested prod. Apparent hoax, no credible sources whatsoever. Derlay 01:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - unless you count Harvard as not a credible source. I just checked in with a math prof (Ph.D.), and she knew it right off the top of her head.Rklawton 01:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

*Keep -- the article has been corrected, and properly referenced. John254 02:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep while the word of even the smartest person in the whole world would mean nothing for an AfD discussion (unless said words were published in reliable sources), this term is notable. A google search turned up these references: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Next time, do a google search and read a few of the links before coming straight to AfD. Some of these websites are even referenced in the article (though I don't know if they appeared after this nomination). --Jayron32 02:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - plenty of evidence out there to back this up. Pete Fenelon 02:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's been sourced, it's a real math concept. --Falcorian ^(talk) 04:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete OK, so I'm going to eat crow on this.
  • 1) it turns out my revisions (An + B where A & B are coprime) introduced Dirichlet's theory well enough (a worthy article). That's why my math professor friend keyed on the name Dirichlet. But this expression includes the set of all prime numbers, and I find it hard to believe that every prime is a Dirichlet Prime. I reverted my work back to the original (minus a "see also" and someone else's reference improvement.
  • 2) I did find a few references to "Dirichlet's primes" in common use (see the article's talk page), but nothing that equated the term with the function 3n-1. As this term is used in these links, it may have been simply a reference to his prime number theory.
  • 3) Likewise, none of the references thoughtfully provided above equated the term with the function, either.
  • 4) I also read through two of the leading, general number theory books (Ireland & Rosen, and Niven, Zuckerman, & Montgomery), and while they had a lot to say about Dirichlet, they never once used the term "Dirichlet prime" or described 3n+1 as a "Dirichlet Prime." Without a reference stating that primes as a function of 3n+1 are specifically named "Dirichlet Primes" - I can't support keeping this article. I apologize for jumping the gun on this one. Rklawton 04:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • replyHowever, Dirichlet appears to have really worked on prime numbers, and his work really was novel. Some of the citations I foudn above refer to Dirichlet's Theorm or something similar. We could move this article to a new name, and then rewrite it from the sources I found to be accurate. I am not a mathematician, I cannot even pretend to be able to work this article out anymore than I have done in finding sources. However, I do believe that this is a rescuable article that a real mathematician could work out. Maybe just a move and rewrite? Is a delete really in order? --Jayron32 04:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • article You are correct. Dirichlet did very significant work. The article you suggest is here Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions. Rklawton 05:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Changed vote from above, since the term, as it exactly appears as the title of the article, does not appear to be a notable term, and the article I propose should exist in its place already exists. Even I can admit when I am wrong. --Jayron32 05:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions or delete. There is no evidence for a proper definition of Dirichlet primes. The term is used sometimes, but it is sloppy language referring to primes of the form An + B in the context of Dirichlet's theorem (sloppy for the reason that Rklawton gives). However, a redirect would perhaps be helpful (it would certainly have saved Rklawton some efforts). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC), amended 05:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per the new information above. John254 05:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, appears to be a valid mathematics article. JIP | Talk 09:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Jitse, but tag the redirect as {{R unprintworthy}} ({{R from alternative name}} doesn't really fit, and neither does {{R from misspelling}}, and we don't seem to have {{R from misinterpreted concept}}). Xtifr _tälk 09:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • changed to Delete per comments by Primehunter below (but if redirected, my previous advice stands). Xtifr _tälk 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for the reason I gave in Talk:Dirichlet prime. Warut 13:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete- Seems like a Hoax Arctic-Editor 15:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I prod'ed it. I haven't seen a relevant Google hit, credible or non-credible. Don't redirect, per my comments at Talk:Dirichlet_prime. Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions doesn't mention "Dirichlet prime" or hint at a meaning (which doesn't appear to exist). Regarding Jitse's comments: Rklawton only searched it because Wikipedia claimed it existed, and other users seem likely to be confused by existence of a redirect (e.g. if they search Dirichlet prime without quotes, which currently gives better redirects to the theorem as 2nd and 3rd hit). PrimeHunter 16:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Jitse. Seems notable as a part of a greater article, but not notable enough for its own. --Wizardman 17:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions, as it seems to be part of the subject. 0L1 Talk Contribs 18:55 25/11/2006 (UTC)
• Redirect as per above. Newyorkbrad 19:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete or redirect per acknowledgement by the creator of the article that there are no sources. Newyorkbrad 22:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and recreate later if anyone finds a justifiable citation. Hv 12:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Ony reference shows no information. This may be made up, it may be real, it does not matter because untill proper references are found it is not verifiable. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe these numbers should be called Dirichlet primes, but sadly it appears this is not an accepted name for them. Gandalf61 15:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable, original research. Melchoir 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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.