Talk:Granville number

Concerns about the notability of the article

I realize that there was already an article by this title that was deleted because it did not conform to Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences End-User License Agreement. However, I have taken care to give the attribution that the OEIS requests.

I also understand that there are some more general concerns about the notability of the article. In addition to the references cited in the article, there is only one other is a book by one of the authors of the original paper[1]. However, Granville numbers have been mentioned in several other Wikipedia articles prior to the re-creation of this article, so it would appear that they are at least some what notable. Mjpam (talk) 05:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't use references from Wikipedia itself to demonstrate notability - that would be a circular argument ! At the moment the OEIS reference in the article just goes to the OEIS seqarch page - do you have an OEIS sequence number (A999999 format) for these numbers ? And do you have a reference that actually calls them Granville numbers ? I would say that would be a minimum benchmark for notability here. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't consider the notability concerns resolved, even if the OEIS references are now OK. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No, indeed - I meant to say that finding the proper OEIS sequences would be "necessary but not sufficient" for notability. As it happens, I have found the sequences of S-perfect and S-abundant numbers in OEIS, and added these links to the article. But the whole article is currently too dependent on a single source (the De Koninck & Ivic paper) , which does not even use the name "Granville numbers" as far as I can tell. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand the objections to the notability of the article. Highly abundant number, Highly composite number, Hyperperfect number, and Superabundant number all say the definition of the numbers discussed therein can be traced back to a single source. Quasiperfect number also cites only one source, so, at least with in the context of a Wikipedia article, the fact that all information about Granville numbers traces back to De Koninck and Ivic (1998) doesn't seem particularly problematic, especially since De Koninck (2009) call the numbers "Granville numbers" 16 times; s.n. (2011) says "${\mathcal {S}}$-perfect numbers, or Granville numbers" (p 130); and OEIS (s.a.) mentions properties of the ${\mathcal {S}}$-abundant and ${\mathcal {S}}$-deficient number that De Konick and Ivic (1998) doesn't. Mjpam (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added a reference to de Koninck's 2009 book to the article as a source for the name "Granville number". More sources would still be useful if you have them. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Two accounts

I've gotta ask... Why do you have two different accounts? See WP:SOCKPUPPET. From your old and current user page, I see no legitimate reason for you to have two accounts. 72.216.8.61 (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to mislead people. However, in most of my other internet interactions, I use the handle "mjpam", and I was getting tired of confusing myself when I was trying to log in here. Of course, given the extent of editing that on the old account I have done in the last, I only managed to confuse myself further.

I wasn't trying to be a sockpuppet, at least in sense of creating an account for the purpose of making controversial edits. My intent was to allow myself the mental space to become a less combative editor. To that end, I wass trying to deprecate the other account, but I signed into it accidentally by force of habit. Mjpam (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If you were also trying to start over, which seems to partially be the case (the "combative editor" part of your comment), I understand that. But creating a new account is not the way to go. See Avoiding scrutiny in the WP:SOCKPUPPET link I provided you with: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors cannot detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions. (Misusing a clean start by switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny may also be considered a breach of this policy.)

While I'm not accusing you of attempting to deceive people (after all, your usernames are similar enough to each other to show that you aren't outright being deceptive), it still is not the best route to take, per above. You can simply request a WP:NAMECHANGE and have an administrator redirect your old user name over to your new user name; that way, your old contributions stay associated with you, and people won't think you are trying to hide them.

As for this article, seems okay to me. There are certainly less notable topics on Wikipedia. 72.216.8.61 (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Clean start for the accepted way to start over in discarding your old account. 72.216.8.61 (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the topic notable now?

I see someone has added a second source to the article.

Does that make the topic more notable?

Can we remove either of the tags? Mjpam (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)