Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/105263157894736842 (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 Merge and redirect to Parasitic number (N-parasitic number redirects to this article). Deathphoenix ʕ 14:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 105263157894736842 (number)

non-notable LARGE number — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Originally PRODded by me, deproded with a comment that notability was asserted. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I've never been convinced that numbers are not notable. If we're going to have obscure insect species, why not obscure numbers? - Richardcavell 06:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Because there's an infinite number of obscure numbers. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I replied to this on the talk page. Mangojuice^talk 13:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I still say that one could write reams about any number between 1 and 10,000. - Richardcavell 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - for the record, I'm voting keep. - Richardcavell 22:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable number MarsRover 06:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia isn't infinite, and this number isn't particularly interesting mathematically. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep Wikipedia is not paper, and I thought the article was interesting. This is clearly a large number of some significance, since it has so many unusual properties. --Hyperbole 07:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't wastepaper, either. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 15:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• This is the "N-parasitic number" for N=2 (sequence A092697 in OEIS), introduced by Clifford A. Pickover in Wonders of Numbers, Oxford University Press, 2000. See also http://www.michael-kreil.de/html/mathematik.html. Create an article N-parasitic number and make this into a redirect. --Lambiam^Talk 07:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, or merge' per Lambiam. bbx 07:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - this is clearly a semi-notable number, being 2-parasitic and all. — SteveRwanda 07:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge by creating N-parasitic number article per Lambian. I was approached by Lambian about this article (since I created it) and he suggested that I create the article about N-parasitic number and merge this and others to it. I agreed to it and contacted Arthur Rubin (the nominator who {{prod}}ed it initially) to ask if he agreed to the notability of N-parasitic numbers. I intended to create the article as soon as I got his reply, but unfortunately he hasn't replied to my message left since yesterday and started the AfD today. I believe this should be an acceptable solution to all, and if it is, I can start working on it today itself. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 08:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Notability isint that great. If we include this one then there's bound to be tons of other numbers with obscure mathamatical properties. All numbers are going to have something special about them if you look hard enough Ydam 09:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Reckon that Ambuj Saxena's solution works rather well. Delete without redirect, and encourage author to begin what sounds like a tremendously useful article. Vizjim 10:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Delete and place the article on the userpage, also encourage the user to perhaps create N-parasitic number per Ambuj Saxena Navou ^talk 11:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have not created the article to push any agenda or personal wishes and hence in no case is there any need to move the article to my sub-page. Even I have agreed to the page being deleted (actually redirecting to N-parasitic number article) where all such numbers can be dealt in a framework of notability. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment To clarify, I think it is a good idea, rather then straight deletion. It looks like someone put a good effort into the article. I would hate to see it deleted without preserving it for inclusion to somewhere else.Navou ^talk 12:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I started the article 3 days back with only other major change beig the addition of table (doucan table) by Anton Mravcek. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to N-parasitic number, but leave the large number category on this number. Redirects are cheap. I have created N-parasitic number. Mangojuice^talk 13:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've renamed it to Parasitic number, as the prefix "n" is sometimes "j" or "k" in the literature. If there's any objection, discuss in that article's talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect, given that the creator is happy with this and that there's obviously notability to some degree. (I'[m still cheesed off that nobody recognises the subtle allure of 11542915415662, but I guess that's just me.) Colonel Tom 13:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have absolutely no idea what Colonel Tom just said. But anyway, this seems to be the most accepted solution. If there are no other objections in the coming two days, I think we can make the article redirect to Parasitic number and close this AfD. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Nparasitic number ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, while the article is interesting, it would be best served to be merged to Parasitic numbering. Falphin 23:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge for reasons stated above. "What links here" indicates the only articles linking to this number are user pages and lists of articles. It's doubtful anyone is likely to find this using Wikipedia's search engine, so if it's part of a larger article it stands a better chance of being useful. 23skidoo 15:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as indicated above into parasitic numbering. Although I doubt that anyone will ever type the number into Wikipedia, we've got plenty of space for redirects. However, the article definitely should not be kept. Any one who spends much time on AfD quickly encounters the interesting number paradox, if we let numbers like this stand, then we'll soon be clogged up with an infinity of number articles. Cool3 20:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --Ixfd64 22:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Reyk _YO! 12:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a mathematician, I say its properties aren't interesting at all.  Grue  14:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, redirect, merge, whatever it takes. Melchoir 06:50, 23 May 2006 (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.