Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/230 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. --Ezeu 00:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 230 (number)

non-notable number — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I am also nominating 240 (number) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Both created by Jesterjester, {{prod}}'d by me, deprod'd by Cfred, speedy redirected to 200 (number) by me, and edited primarily by Anton Mravcek — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Let the record show that Anton Mravcek has been an upstanding editor of the Slovenian Wikipedia for more than a year, receiving two awards. Jesterjester, on the other hand, has been with the English Wikipedia less than a month, and has not earned half as much as respect as Anton. Robert Happelberg 23:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I accept your analysis, and would defer to Anton in some respects. But I still think that these border on the limits of notability, if not below. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to 200 (number). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For both: Merge and redirect. --LambiamTalk 22:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. this are very intersting numbers, we're not talking about some randonmly chosen integer like 10061092961. Arthur's just mad his prod "non-notable integer" was quickly proven wrong. 230 and 240 are both very notable integers. Numerao 23:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Just mad? My impression is he's always mad :). Furthermore, 10061092961 has many more interesting properties than 230 and 240 combined. Maybe I'll write an article about it after I've done all smaller interesting numbers. --LambiamTalk 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete to conform with WP:NUM. It's arbitrary and it's not policy, but I suppose there has the be a limit. Not sure I understand the reasoning for redirecting to 200, though. ScottW 00:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Redirect per Arthur's reasoning below. ScottW 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete without redirect, unless there is some pressing and compelling reason why 200 would have anything to do with 230 (and not the mere fact that they are part of the same set of hundred numbers) Hobbeslover talk/contribs 00:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC) Redirect per User:Arthur_Rubin Hobbeslover talk/contribs 03:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. Split the 200 (number) article into 10 articles, one for each group of 10 in the range from 200-299. The 230 (number) article should cover the range 230-239 and the 240 (number) should cover the range 240-249. Georgia guy 13:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think htis is a good idea. Numerao 23:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. The fact that the same person who proposed deletion is the one who nominated for deletion is very bad form, in my opinion. If it was up to me this whole thing would be dismissed on those grounds alone. Robert Happelberg 16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Why is it a problem that the person adding the prod tag also brought it here? Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion is clear that this is the procedure to follow. From the Conflicts section "Contested deletions: If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion." ScottW 16:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If i undertand the prod template correctly, its to be used by people who think their might be a need to delete but aren't sure. If your sure it needs to be deleted, you should say so from the get-go. Thats what i think bout that. Numerao 20:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
      • No, the prod tag is for deletions that you feel are uncontroversial. Any deletion that may be contested or that you are unsure of goes to AfD. This is why so many things in AfD are articles which are contested prods. ScottW 21:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Therefore if your {{prod}} turns out to be controversial, you should bring it to AfD. Septentrionalis 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 230. Its relation to space groups makes it a very interesting number in my book. I reserve the right to vote on 240 later this week. PrimeFan 22:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. I'd be a lot more concerned about articles on numbers like 12345678987654321 (number) which have nothing interesting about them besides being pandigital in one base.
    It's not even pandigital, missing a 0. It is 1111111112 though. --LambiamTalk 03:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm working on it. Grumble. He created 3 categories and several implausible redirects, also. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 240. WP:NUM should be interpreted to mean three non-trivial properties.Septentrionalis 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's debatable what "non-trivial" is. Ramanujan would've probably been unmoved by the fact that (1 + 7 + 2 + 9)|1729, while Kaprekar might have not cared that 12^3 + 1^3 = 10^3 + 9^3 = 1729. Anton Mravcek 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 230. ShutterBugTrekker 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 240. It's the model number of the Convair 240, plus there are articles on various highways #240. ShutterBugTrekker 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete 230 - however much disk space we have, we can't have room for an article on every possible integer.--Runcorn 17:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. That's an issue addressed almost at the very top of WP:NUM. PrimeFan 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Wow, Runcorn is such an original thinkers. Numbers are infinite, wow, that's such a revelation. Without a genius like Runcorn, imagine for how long we would have been stuck in this long, endless task! Anton Mravcek 18:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I'm well aware of the point made by PrimeFan. I just wanted to avoid someone saying that because WP is not paper, we have room for articles on everything.--Runcorn 19:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The only reason I created 230, 240, and 270 is because they were red links on the list of numbers page. Jesterjester 03:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for explaining; but then you misunderstood the purpose of the list. Those articles are intended to be lists of all interesting properties of the whole decade, as 300 (number) is of the whole hundred. It may be best to merge all of these into 200 (number). Septentrionalis 18:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep both. The time is ripe to split up 200. I volunteer to help Georgia guy implement his idea. Anton Mravcek 18:45, 4 June 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.