Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/-40 (number)

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 of the debate was - kept

[edit] -40 (number)

Not an interesting number. Lev 20:39, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Are you serious? I mean, I don't find 8 all that interesting but it's still here. Keep. Mike H 21:10, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Keep.-PlasmaDragon 21:27, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Not an interesting number? Well that's a new one. The big question is, what number do you deem interesting enough to keep? Keep. Wyllium 22:41, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)
• K R The particular use mentioned on the page is the basis of one of the two popular methods for converting Fahrenheit to Centigrade. As for vice versa, who on Earth would want to do that? :o) - having read the talk page, the content is already listed on 40 as per the Numbers Wikiproject policy. Simply redirect to 40. Chris 22:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. It's every bit as riveting as 37. Fishal
• Keep, what's wrong with the number where the Centigrade and Farenheit scales coincide? It's notable because of that, surely. Just as 32 is notable for being the freezing point in F. 132.205.15.4 00:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Has at least one notable property, and is a distinct number of its own, so keep, no redirect. [[User:Livajo|力伟|т]] 00:15, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  See here before continuing. Chris 01:27, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, no redirect. It does have a specific property that it does not share with 40, and I think that merits it's own article. The guidelines in the Numbers Wikiproject are loose, and I think this article merits and exception. Satori 02:27, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but there should be more. The problem is how to make it encyclopedic. --AlainV 02:31, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. All numbers are created equal (to 47). ~leif 07:14, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Information duplicate with 40. (I agree, properties of number -40 should be placed there.) Redirect. - Mike Rosoft 19:28, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid article. Could be expanded. — Gwalla | Talk 21:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Do not redirect. One sentence duplication is okay to me. jni 13:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep.' Hahaha. This VfD has made me laugh. Andre (talk) 14:41, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete all number articles. Not encyclopedic. anthony (see warning) 17:14, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep all number articles. Encyclopedic. Mark Richards 17:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• All of them? You know they are part of an infinite set, right? ;-) func(talk) 04:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, the number articles we have on Wikipedia are a finite subset of that infinite set, but I still don't think they're encyclopedic. anthony (see warning) 12:45, 21 Oct 2004 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.