Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9814072356

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep - 18 keep/15 delete (merge and move votes counted as keep) - 8 plain keep votes, 10 merge (including merge/redirect), 2 votes to just redirect. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 9814072356

Delete; a non-notable number as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers criteria. --Russ Blau (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, being the largest square number using the digits 0-9 is notable. Kappa 02:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unless I'm mistaken, the representation of a number's digits in base 10 has rather little to do with any mathematically interesting (i.e. notable) properties it might have. Write it in binary, say, and the same number is suddenly much less interesting. What's next? The largest square number using only digits 0-8, 0-7, etc? Largest square number using digits 0-5 exactly once in base 6? Really now. flowersofnight 02:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What's next? Delete 666 because it's not mathematically interesting? Kappa 02:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • 668: The neighbor of The Beast -- George Carlin -- Qaz ^(talk) 02:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • More funny beast numbers at Number of the Beast (numerology). Denni☯ 07:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • 666 is in here for reasons other than mathematical interest. Lord Bob 03:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
    • 666 isn't an apt comparison though, seeing as it's famous as the "number of the beast", and not just the fact that it's three 6's in a row. 9814072356 lays no claim to cultural significance, so it needs to be judged on how interesting it is mathematically. My point, I suppose, is that this article makes no claim to mathematical notability. It just points out a quirk of the way we write the number in base 10 - which is only one of many ways to write it. flowersofnight 03:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not a notable number. I mean, I kinda like the '1407' in there, it really adds a certain je ne sais whatever, but still... Lord Bob 03:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa abakharev 05:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Real number, interesting properties. Klonimus 22:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this number is trivial and non-notable, and certainly won't ever have a page like 666 (number), nor any of the other numbers the Wikiproject is working on. In fact, it probably won't ever get beyond this one line. Perhaps it can be merged into another article, like square number, as trivia? Baryonyx 06:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with square number and redirect. Certainly do not keep. Proto t c 08:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I can't conceive of somebody typing in this number in a search box, without aleady knowing its "signficance". --rob 09:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, per nomination and also because Wikipedia is not infinite. (Note, in particular, the interesting number paradox) -- Peruvianllama 09:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia is very big. We only have about 245 integer number articles. And that we take more space with an AfD thn the article does. And that 427 (number) quoted as an example by Uncle G was speedied because it looked like nonsense. In fact someone had put "square furlongs" as the unit, when it should have been cubic inches. Rich Farmbrough 00:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN. I'm sorry but this has to go. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 09:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with square number and redirect. -- RHaworth 10:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with square number and redirect. -- Mrmooky 14:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted when counting, user has 12 edits all of which are to AFD's. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with square number. Redirect if you must, though like Thivierr I can't imaging anyone thinking "Hmm. I wonder if the number nine billion eight hundred and fourteen million seventy-two thousand three hundred and fifty six has any interesting mathematical properties" and typing it into the search bar. --Last Malthusian 14:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

More likely, why did I write down 9814072356? Or having discovered one of it's properties, wanting ito know if it has more. Rich Farmbrough 00:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not in the Book. Pilatus 15:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't bother merging or redirecting, delete. The square numbers page already has lots of examples, none of which have separate redirect pages. -- Corvus 17:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Corvus. I find the idea of merging this into the article on square numbers silly. If I type the number in the search box and I get an article on square numbers, does that make sense? Why not the article on pandigital numbers? Why not the article about integers? Anton Mravcek 21:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

    Exactly why it needs its own short article. Rich Farmbrough 00:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into square number as above. The reason why we must also redirect has to do with the GFDL, not functionality - since we can't merge histories we can't merge then delete. ESkog | ^Talk 17:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete One interesting property is not enough to justify an article. This number is not even listed in the OEIS. The one interesting property can be mentioned in the page on 10^10, which has a listing for selected 10-digit numbers. PrimeFan 18:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Keep but move per consistency with other number articles. PrimeFan 20:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yes it is mentioned on OEIS : twice. Rich Farmbrough 02:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

  • You're right. It shows up with Advanced Search. PrimeFan 20:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge agreeing with above. Otherwise this should be deleted. Dottore So 19:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete By deleting we get rid of a history which consists of an anonymous user putting down one bald line about a number with just one interesting tidbit to it, followed by logged users condescending on the anonymous user, finally leading to a deletion nomination. I won't cry to see that go. Anton Mravcek 21:49, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. First, a dicdef at best. Second, NN. Third, it is named wrong. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), articles for years have pure number titles, just like 2005, 1945, 476 and 3. This article should be about the year AD 9814072356. Redirect to 9814072nd century? --A D Monroe III 00:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, it would be the 98140724th century. Proto t c 09:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • No, wait, it should be 98140723rd century! Gosh! This is getting almost as interresting and useful as the article! --A D Monroe III 19:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Nope, it's the 98140724th century. The year 2356 would be the 24th century, just add on the other numbers in front. Proto t c 08:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Move Should be moved to ~(number) Rich Farmbrough 00:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into square number. It is notable, but only for those researching square numbers. It is not substantial enough for its own article.Dotto 01:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above or move. JYolkowski // talk 02:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect, not because I don't think it's notable enough to merit its own page (honestly, I am not sure of that either way), but because I think it's much more likely that someone will search for this information in square number. I have no problem with a redirect, though, in case someone does search for the specific number, because reidrects are cheap. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per A D Monroe III. NatusRoma 04:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as having no particular cultural, historical, or mathematical interest. It does some little tricks, but don't all big numbers? MCB 05:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough, all big numbers like this have a few fancy facts.Rhetoricalwater 05:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect into square number. Like several others, I feel there's a small chance this information may be of some use to those researching square numbers -- but it does not deserve its own article. Engineer Bob 07:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Of minor interest as a base ten number, though I cannot imagine anyone searching for this number without already knowing its significance. Oh, what the heck. Delete. Denni☯ 07:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep - but rename as 9814072356 (number). Qualifies for its own article under the remarkable mathematical property criteria. Can't see any criteria that say a number must have more than one remarkable property to qualify for its own article. Could be expanded to a more general article on pandigital squares or pandigital powers. Definitely do not delete - it contains some really interesting information. Gandalf61 11:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of the part that says "As a guideline, you ought to know at least three interesting properties of a number. (What constitutes interesting can be debated, but the point is that the careless creation of number article stubs is to be avoided.)" I don't see three interesting properties in this article. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • A proven Sierpinski number would be remarkable. A counterexample to Poincare's conjecture would be remarkable. An odd perfect number would deserve its own article even if it was very dull otherwise. But a square that is pandigital in one base? Interesting is as far as I'll call it. Now, if it was pandigital in several consecutive bases, that might be remarkable. PrimeFan 14:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Assuming you mean using each digit exactly once, it is impossible for a number to be pandigital in more than one base. If you allow repeats then the number in question fits the bill for bases 1,2,3,4. Rich Farmbrough 17:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I for one would find it interesting if this number was pandigital (even with repeats) in every base up to the largest base for which it would be reasonable to expect pandigitality (sort of like a strictly non-palindromic number n is not palindromic in any base from 2 to n - 2, while in base n - 1 it must be "11"). But it fails the test at 5, and I don't find that all that interesting. Anton Mravcek 18:21, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
          • I did not completely think that one through, but I was going in the direction suggested by Anton. PrimeFan 20:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. This number has just one remarkable property, which I'd classify as mildly interesting at most, and which is listed at other places. The other properties listed in the article need to go, IMHO. I think a redirect to square number would be confusing; perhaps redirect to 1000000000 (number) where other 10-digit numbers are listed. I seriously doubt that the GFDL requires a redirect in this case since mathematical facts are not copyrightable. Only a weak delete since the number is apparently listed in some other books. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • IIRC, it's quite commonly mentioned in math puzzle books, like Rouse Ball's. Septentrionalis 22:54, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a) as this stands, this is a year, not a number. b) it is not an exceptionally interesting number (or year, as far as is knowable). Xoloz 16:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but rename for consistency with other numbers. Its a) the largest pandigital square without repeats, b) its the square of a stroborgammatic number and c) I promise I will find one more interesting thing about it so we can just drop the not enough intersting things argument. Numerao 22:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• 'keep this as a unique article please it does not have to be merged Yuckfoo 23:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per it is mentioned on OEIS, and per Kappa. Also, it may not be mathematically interesting, but neither is 31, or 7, so why don't we delete those if we're deleting this. We've already taken up at least twice the space of the article with this debate. Scythe33 01:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Interesting, unique, harmless. 24.241.227.251 19:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted when closing, IP's while encourged to comment cannot have their votes counted. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect into 1000000000 (number), which is a list of 10-digit oddities. There is already a line for this; so technically a merge is unnecessary. Mention under square number. Septentrionalis 22:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect or into 1000000000 (number), and don't mention or merge under square number - it's not interesting enough for inclusion there. Only truly interesting mathematical properties should be given their own articles. -DDerby-(talk) 19:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not mention? Even though you may want to delete it, there is no reason to completely ignore it.

• Keep Interesting and unique.--Promatrax161 09:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

User's vote discounted when tallying, user only has 7 edits, 2 of which are to this RFA. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 22:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.