Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/270 (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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 270 (number)

Non-notable number. Perhaps it would be notable if the information were correct, but I also fixed 2 or 3 errors while nominating. (At the present time, there is 1 notable property, Harshard not being notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. WP is not paper, but even multi-Petabyte storage will run out if we generate a page per number. Imagine a bot doing it automatically (and correctly!). No way Jose. Crum375 01:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Original thinker award to Crum75 for that argument. Anton Mravcek 18:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Talking about numbers, that one ain't mine, but thanks anyway. :P Crum375 19:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: although I'll miss that insightful sentence '270 is the number of Interstate 270, which denotes any of a number of loop routes off Interstate 70.' Oh yes, my friend, oh yes. --die Baumfabrik 03:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. That one was my fault. The original was something about a spur off Interstate 40, which is probably completely wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Thanks for fixing my errors, and sorry about the mistakes, but you do realize that those alone are no reason to delete the page. I'm not sure what you count as interesting though, since this is the guideline: Name at least three interesting and unrelated properties of the number. It does not say mathematical anywhere, and by my count there are at the very least two, if not up to four interesting facts on this page. -JesterJester (not logged in currently)
• Keep. From my point of view, it makes no sense to delete this when we have Category:Integers with a happy percentage of the other integers we know and love. Is 270 less deserving than 269? Or 155? How about -40? I don't think so. The nom seems to feel that some numbers are more important, or more notable, than 270. I'm not sure why that should be the case. Aren't they all equally important as abstract representations of an underlying reality? As such are we in any way equipped to differentiate between the notable and not notable? If these questions all have simple answers, perhaps we should make this a group nom to eliminate all the less important integers that are weighing so heavily on the reputation of this reference work. --JJay 04:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Boring number, all properties listed except perhaps being an Ore number are not interesting. I'm getting tired of these senseless articles being created, and for the life of me I can't understand why a serious user would vote Keep. If it were up to me, we wouldn't have 269 either; it is listed under 200 and that is good enough. Please understand we need to stop somewhere; why should we have to endure debates as for 37564, 31999998, 99999999 or 10061092961? There is no end to it. --Lambiam^Talk 04:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Time for a history lesson. WP:NUM originally said every integer from 1 to 1024 was going to have its own article. The deletionists howled. So it was changed to 1001, then down to 257. The deletionists were still howling their tired old "numbers are infinite" argument. So WP:NUM went down to 200. The deletionists are still harping on the "numbers are infinite" argument. They're not going to be happy until the article on 42 gets deleted. So I quote Captain Picard and say "The line is drawn here. This far and no further!" Anton Mravcek 22:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because I can't count that high on my fingers. No really, what Lambiam said Teke 06:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - NN per nom. mgekelly 08:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom - we really do get some very very odd articles here - Peripitus 11:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone above- simply lacking enough sufficiently interesting mathematical properties. -- Kicking222 12:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete simply not notable enough Ydam 12:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 13:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kicking. --Nearly Headless Nick 13:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn number. --Terence Ong 14:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 16:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Spare us. Mr Stephen 18:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to 200 (number) as per convention. — RJH (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect per above. --Max Talk (add) 19:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per JJay. Calwatch 06:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with Jjay. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Crum375 Eluchil404 22:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It's my boyfriend's favorite number. Augurr 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I don't mean any disrespect, but could you please give another, more publically assessable reason for your vote? PrimeFan 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears in one core sequence of the OEIS and 63 nice ones (excluding sequences with keyword base). That it's an Ore number and the number of square permutations for 6 elements constitutes two mathematically interesting properties, while the fact that it's the minimum number of Electoral College votes needed to be selected U.S. President is a culturally interesting property. PrimeFan 16:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Mathematicaly and culturally notable number. Numerao 22:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep because of the political significance. Cromulent Kwyjibo 21:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Mathematically and culturally notable. Cholerashot 22:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Anton Mravcek 23:12, 8 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.