Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ancient Science of Numbers

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ancient Science of Numbers

[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)

Currently the only cited sources are two blogs and a book which only mentions this work in passing, and doesn't even support the statement for which it is cited. An online search found lots off places selling various editions of The Ancient Science of Numbers, but no place cites it or refers to it in more than a passing way in a reliable source. Fails WP:NBOOK. Fails WP:GNG. Apparently not notable, unless I have missed some significant sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC) DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect? - I can't add anything to improve the sourcing, but "Luo Clement" is mentioned in the article on William Delbert Gann, as a possible pseudonym of his: is there any merit in redirecting this there? Ingratis (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is currently supported by two cited sources in William Delbert Gann. One is a blog, the same blog curently cited in The Ancient Science of Numbers for the same purpose. The other is a book, cited with no page number, that is not available online nor searchable, leaving a would-be verifier to read the whole book. I found this allegation in a few places online, always written as speculation of the "some suggest" type, with no attribution to anyone who says this is the case, or even likely. Not much of a basis for a redirect. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here, for example - "Technical Analysis For Dummies", Barbara Rockefeller, p.310. That's enough for a footnote IMO. But it's no big deal either way.Ingratis (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note that the author there says "He may have used a pseudonym to write The Ancient Science of Numbers" (emphasis added) with no indication of who says this is likely nor why. That is the sort of thing I was referring to above. But I wouldn't object strongly to a redirect, as long as this is not restored as an independent article without better sourcing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have posted at Talk:William Delbert Gann suggesting the removal of this mention, which make a redirect rather pointless. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:56, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete "one of the...". I was going with merge, but why? What is notable about this book?Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and retain whatever is useful (if anything) somewhere else, like Numerology (recent history of) or similar. GPinkerton (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any in-depth reviews or other publications about this work that would give it WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable independent secondary sources. Guy (help!) 12:33, 6 June 2020 (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.