Deletion of Carol number

Comment: Fails . Non-refereed websites, or math hobbiest websites no more authoritative than Wikipedia itself are not sufficient sourcing. "Other stuff exists" and "I like it" are not convincing arguments for neologism articles about types of numbers. What is needed is significant or substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The fact that someone feels "Carol (name redacted) is my best female friend in the whole wide world." and wants to name something after her is as irrelevant to the purposes of Wikipedia as would be someone paying a "http://www.space.com/spacewatch/mystery_monday_030915.html star registry" to name a star after his Aunt Gertrude, and then someone putting as article about the star "Aunt Gertrude" in Wikipedia. The star registry companies are missing a bet: they could just make up some formula like this with some variation which selects some of the prime numbers then sell a beautiful parchment printout of the "Aunt Gertrude numbers," if the formula generates any, and wait for people to create a Wikipedia article about them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: For most obscure math topics such as this I'd be happy to !vote keep if I could find three professionally published papers by independent groups on the subject, but this one doesn't even seem to have a single |reliable source. And there's nothing particularly faulty about the math in the article, but there's nothing particularly interesting enough either (as evidenced by the fact that in the six or so years since they were named, nobody else has taken the trouble to write and publish any research about them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)