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 Merge to Ulam spiral. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 06:19Z

Number spiral[edit]

Number spiral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Seems to fail the notability guideline. The only reference I can find via Google is the website http://www.numberspiral.com by the guy that came up with the idea and a link to that page on http://secamlocal.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/zeta/ulam.htm with the description "R. Sacks' NumberSpiral page with an interesting graphical variation on the theme" [of Ulam's spiral]. I cannot find any papers commenting on the "number spiral" on MathSciNet.

The Ulam spiral, which is notable, is slightly different. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ulam spiral. Per the nom this spiral is not notable and someone looking for number spiral is very likely looking for Ulam's. JoshuaZ 01:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Math should be published or referenced in a recognized mathematical forum to be notable. "The Internet" doesn't count. Redirecting would be acceptable, but seems not-so-useful. --N Shar 01:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect as above. I looked at the article and it mentions nothing that would make it notable other then a self published web posting in 2003. Jeepday 01:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Either keep or merge into Ulam spiral. I don't think we should make an absolute of the guideline that it should be published in a refereed journal to be considered notable. Based on its content alone, I'd say this is at least as notable as the Ulam spiral, the question being whether it's sufficiently different from the Ulam spiral to be a separate article. It seems the Ulam spiral winds once around the origin every time this spiral winds around twice. Perhaps all of the phenomena pointed out here are equivalent to something observed in the Ulam spiral. In that case, maybe just merging this whole thing into Ulam spiral and labelling it a sort of variation on the theme of that article would be appropriate. Michael Hardy 02:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to userfy. I am astonished to learn that a man published something on the web three years after he died. Nevertheless, I have some duties concerning his disjecta membra, and would appreciate the opportunity to research the topic further to see if a verifiable article can be written: a task that I cannot hope to complete before this AfD must be resolved. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at Wikipedia:About the Sandbox and don't see anything that would prohibit you from using User:Robert A West/sandbox to work on the article. It is failing WP:N and is not a copyvio so you should be fine. You don't need consent to copy and paste it. Jeepday 13:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ulam spiral and perhaps merge essentials (meaning 2-3 sentences or even just the link). The Ulam Spiral is the well known one / original, and is featured in many popular texts. This is much, much less notable, and boarderline website promotional in nature, but might be interesting to readers looking for more mysterious prime number observations. Danski14 03:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the link and a brief explanation This isn't just an ad. Xiner (talk, email) 04:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and userfy if necessary. /Blaxthos 09:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Perhaps because of the way the nomination was phrased (in terms of notability) nobody seems to have addressed the issue of WP:NOR. What are the reliable sources that this material has been published in? --C S (Talk) 09:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Responding to Michael Hardy: they do both seem to pick out the same features, the diagonals in Ulams sprials are all of the form ${\displaystyle n=ax^{2}+bx+c}$ likewise the curves picked out by this spiral are of the same form ${\displaystyle x^{2}+a}$, or ${\displaystyle x(x+1)+b}$. One rotation in Ulams spiral is two rotations in this spiral, so there is some simple correspondence. I think there are certain nice features of this presentation as it lacks the sharp corners of Ulam's, and the fact that each quadratic makes a single curve from the origin rather than two diagonal lines in Ulam's. --Salix alba (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to NOR issue IIRC, Robert Sacks was a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, so they may have somehing on this, but that will take time to check, and I don't have much time right now. If I find reliable sources, it can be undeleted. Robert A.West (Talk) 00:58, 8 February 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.