Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/⅝

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 Delete Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 5/8

Do we really need an article on a fraction?--Shanel 04:33, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

  • No we don't. Delete — Kjammer ⌂ 04:37, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • (Speedy)Delete please.--Jondel 04:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Slightly stunned speechless strong delete. Perhaps we need a new speedy delete criteria: fractions with no assertion of notability. Bunchofgrapes 04:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment receintly we have had articles with symbols in their namespace created by users of the same name (such as this one). For more, see ? by user:? and ? by user:?. — Kjammer ⌂ 05:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That's because these articles were created by a sock puppet of banned vandal User:JarlaxleArtemis for the purpose of disrupting Wikipedia. ?Psychonaut 16:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Personally, I'd love to see this deleted, but according to WikiProject Numbers, any fraction which has a Unicode character is entitled to an article (if I am reading it correctly). Owen× ☎ 05:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: From what I've seen, a whole bunch of unremarkable-seeming numbers have articles. I'm not sure I see why, but I don't see why we need articles on schools either. Apparently there's precedent. Friday (talk) 05:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't any more notable than 3/7, or 8/11, or 4/9, etc.
    • Sorry, forgot to sign... The previous vote is by me -- Laur 07:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. If we have articles for vaguely notable integers (which we do), then there is little wrong with keeping vaguely notable vulgar fractions. Grutness...wha? 06:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless there's something interesting to say about it. Tuf-Kat 06:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It is also the name of a position in rugby also fly half. Capitalistroadster 06:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to five-eigths or similar as the present page title causes severe technical difficulties. Alphax τεχ 06:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • keep please this fraction is important too Yuckfoo 07:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Are we going to try to list every fraction? Or every typographical character? This is getting preposterous. It's just a quantity; of no cultural, historical, or mathematical interest whatsoever. -- MCB 08:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete A3 as an article that says nothing but a rephrasing of its title. - 131.211.210.10 09:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Forgot to sign. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What is written there is not from the Book. Pilatus 11:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not enough to write and actual article. This will never be more than a one-sentence stub.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 11:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • delete all eight 8ths of the article. --bodnotbod 12:07, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - there's nothing notable about it, and as far as I can tell, the only reason it's in Unicode is for compatibility with older character sets. sjorford #£@%&$?! 15:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - There is really no good reason for this. Wiki is not paper, yes, but seriously, this is ridiculous. Add it into a Unicode page? splintax (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can come up with a really good reason why wikipedia should catalogue fractions.--Isotope23 16:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Which article are we voting on, the character or the fraction? As they stand, delete them both. Gazpacho 17:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete one hundred percent. No encyclopedic content, and opens the door to an (infinite to the infinite power) number of useless articles. Let's change that Unicode "policy" in WikiProject Numbers, too. Barno 20:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Let's not. There are exactly 12 fractions in the Number Forms block in Unicode. Uncle G 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, just like 3 (number), 4 (number), etc. ? Phil Welch 21:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't resist suggesting that we should be looking for the highest common denominator in our articles, rather than the lowest, and that over-8 is a pretty low denominator. -Splashtalk 22:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Phil, I hope you realize this article is a rephrasing of its title. If someone can include even a fraction (pardon the pun) of the info that's in the 3 (number) article, such a speedy deletion wouldn't even be in question. - Mgm|(talk) 10:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete That there are other articles almost as useless as this one is no reason for keeping this one. Rather, delete the other ones too. Oleg Alexandrov 21:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, it's a mathematicians version of a dicdef with zero expansion. -Splashtalk 22:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN, dicdef, not expandable, bad precedent. --A D Monroe III 00:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Paul August ☎ 01:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Gents and ladies, we are wasting our time here. linas 04:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Lete/de. Lets see, hummm, per Oleg Alexandrov sounds reasonable. Sabine's Sunbird 04:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There are an infinite number of fractions. How is having individual articles on each reasonable? If there are interesting mathematical properties associated with certain numbers or fractions, yes, I can see a case being made for that. But this is really taking matters too far.?encephalon????????? 07:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It said on the project number page "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.)" - There were not 3 interesting properties in this case. Astrokey44 11:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not a worthy fraction. Made by the unicode vandal. - Hahnchen 14:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - The article is nothing but a tautology -- Ketil Trout 16:25, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Listify and redirect. — Instantnood 18:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I thought there was a speedy category for "articles that contain no information that is not contained in the title." I guess I was mistaken, or the definitions have changed, because the actual phrasing is "Any article whose contents consist only of ... a rephrasing of the title." So this article is not quite a speedy. But it sure is close. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. It's certainly close enough, Dpbsmith. And it's quite obvious numbercruft. / Peter Isotalo 00:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's nothing special, either claimed or that I know of, about this fraction. What's next? 12346/465123 ? Frankly I think this is a speedy, for no content other than rephrasing the title. Nabla 20:11, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep verifiable fraction. Member of the set of positive real numbers. Klonimus 19:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Shall we create articles for each of the other positive real numbers as well? And how about the negative real numbers? Imaginary numbers? Complex numbers? ?Psychonaut 19:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. non-notable member of the set of real numbers. --Vsion 07:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Notability is not a criterion for inclusion. Klonimus 19:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
      • As you understand the criteria for inclusion, Klonimus, are there any fractions that would not qualify for inclusion, and, if so, which fractions would they be? Dpbsmith (talk) 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I think all the common fractions up to 1/12-11/12 As well as 1/16-15/16 (fractional inches) and 1/32-31/32 (Bond prices) are worthy of inclusion, and other fractions as needed. Basicly fractions that people are likely to encounter in daily life ought to be included. 5/8 is a pretty common fraction and so it merits inclusion. Klonimus 06:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Wrong. Notability is a criterion for inclusion, especially so when it comes to numbers. Because Wikipedia is not infinite, we have notability and inclusion criteria for numbers. As mentioned above, per those very criteria, this number is notable. Uncle G 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Trovatore 04:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete No assertion of notability. If this dicdef were kept, it would have to be moved to five-eighth. Septentrionalis 15:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It is not inconceivable that some somewhat sexy facts about a particular number can be adduced; if that is done, the article could become worthwhile. Here's one: in one instance of his anticipation of integral calculus, Archimedes proved that the center of gravity of a solid hemisphere of uniform density is 5/8 of the way from the center of the sphere to the pole. Michael Hardy 00:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • As pointed out by OwenX above, this number is notable as per the WikiProject Numbers notability and inclusion criteria. It is interesting to read RasputinAXP, Splash, A D Monroe III all asserting that this article is unexpandable beyond a one sentence stub, given that such expansion is exactly what has just happened. Modified article. ☺ MacGyverMagic, Dpbsmith, Karmosin, Ketiltrout, and Septentrionalis all are of the opinion that this article should be deleted because it did not contain anything beyond what is in its title. Since that is no longer true, I suggest that they reconsider their votes. Astrokey44 may care to note that there now are three interesting pieces of information listed on the page. The only problem with this article is its title, which most people cannot directly enter into the search box without gymnastics of various sorts. Per the WikiProject Numbers notability criteria and the discussion on article naming for fractions at Talk:one half, Keep and Rename to five eighths. Uncle G 15:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • That's two only moderately interesting pieces of information: the spanner size stuff should go back there. But this is an assertion of notability, and I have changed my vote accordingly. Septentrionalis 17:08, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • Back where? I didn't take it from another article. Moreover, you've changed your vote to delete, but struck through all of your rationale leaving only text that talks about keeping. Uncle G 20:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikiproject Numbers says "the careless creation of number article stubs is to be avoided." If this isn't a carelessly created number stub, I don't know what it is. The guideline is that before creating an article, "you ought to know at least three interesting properties of a number. (What constitutes interesting can be debated..." The current examples are strained. I don't believe for a minute anyone "knew" at three interesting properties of the number before the stub was created; they've been inventively added after the fact by another editor. If you had asked that editor a week ago to name an interesting fraction, I doubt that he or she would have said "Five-eighths." Now that they've been concocted, it's still very "debatable" whether these are "interesting properties."
    • None of the examples given (approximately equal to kilometers/mile; Unicode code point; spanner size) is a property of the number at all. These are examples of use of the number, not properties of the number.
    • The approximation of kilometers/mile is hardly interesting. It is not surprisingly close approximation in the way that 355/113 is a surprisingly ckise approximation for pi. If approximations to kilometers per mile are interesting, should also have articles for 31/50, 621/1000, 6133/10000, 61337/100000? The fact that it is a spanner size and that it has a Unicode code point are better documented in list form in the appropriate articles, if they are not already. No change in vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
      • On the contrary, the approximation of kilometers per mile is a "surprisingly close" approximation in exactly the same way that 355/113 is a surprisingly close approximation for pi. 355/113 is a continuant of the continued fraction expansion of pi, and as such, it is the best possible approximation without using a fraction with a larger denominator. In the U.S., one mile is defined by law to be exactly 15625/25146 kilometers, and 5/8 is indeed the fourth continuant of this number. Hope this helps! -- Dominus 20:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
        • I stand corrected, then: neither of them is surprising. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I was mistaken. There is an important sense in which 355/113 is a "surprisingly close" rational approximation to pi that is not shared by 5/8. The next term in the continued fraction expansion of pi is 292, which is unusually large; it's this that accounts for the fact that the next-most-accurate approximation for pi has a six-digit denominator. For 15625/25146, the next term is 1, which isn't unusually large, and so the next best approximation is 8/13. My apologies for overlooking this. -- Dominus 01:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Although I did add binary and hexadecimal fractions to the article -- there's no there there. -- Arthur Rubin 18:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Why do the numbers in Category:Integers merit inclusion, but 5/8 does not? -- Dominus 20:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable fraction. Optichan 18:09, 22 September 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.