Deletion of Bailey Notation

Comment: It's good that KTo288 asked for help at WT:WPM (I came from there), but his/her reasoning is completely wrong.  No expert is needed to verify this article or attest to notability.  What is needed is multiple reliable sources.  According to the article creator, this was made up by the inventor at the beginning of this year and "most of the scientific and mathematical community have not yet heard much about it".  Ok, so there's a claim that "it is becoming more and more widely used".  Well, then let's see the use!  Cite some papers.  Otherwise I don't see why this any different than creating an article on something I made up several months ago and am trying to publish now (I am a professional mathematician).  I would think if I did so, it would be reasonable to reject it based on  and I don't see why this case is any different
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: per nom. The part on the Graham number is backed up by a link, but the topic of the article itself is probably made up. |Wikipedia is not for things made up whilst bored in maths class one day
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day (WP:MADEUP)