Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/330 (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 was redirect to 300 (number). It's so nice to see a well discussed AFD with actual policies being referenced. Good work all! Proto::type 10:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 330 (number)

  • I sugggest this article being deleted as not notable. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • SPEEDY DELETE There is no content or anything to show that the number 330 is notable. Ryulong 20:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per above - won't waste more words on it. KarenAnn 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A wholly pointless article.--Anthony.bradbury 22:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 300 My fisrt instinct was that the author is probly trying to make the WP:POINT that their shouldn't be any articles on numbers at all, hoping to create a slippery slope that will lead to teh deletion of number articles like 47, 163, 1729, etc. According to WP:NUM#Before creating a new article, the author shold've looked at 300 (number) to see if it said anything about 330. Next, he or she should've tried to see if e could round up three interesting properties. WP:1729 is one proposed yardstick of whats an intersting prop, with the scoring as follows:
meaning theres two interesting mathmatical properties. In hte absence of a third as expected by WP:NUM, I'm voting a weak delete. Numerao 22:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Your careful consideration is very much appreciated. Anton Mravcek 21:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC) P.S. I looked on Friedman's "What's special about this number?" For 330 it just says 11C4, which I don't find that special, but I haven't run that through the WP:1729 questionnaire yet.
        • compositefan points out that 330 is in Pascals triangel, and not just at row 330 column 2. I haven't put this particular tidbit thru the WP:1729 questionaire yet eihter. Numerao 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment No offense, but I have absolutely no idea what your vote is trying to say, if anything at all. -- Kicking222 00:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
      • What I'm saying is taht I considered my vote very very carefully, that I din't just say "delete" for the heck of it. Numerao 16:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep I think 330 has just enough interesting properties shown in the article to warrant inclusion, but I could almost go either way. Maybe the piece of golf trivia barely pushes my vote into "keep" territory. -- Kicking222 00:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 300 (number), where it is already mentioned. — RJH (talk) 02:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. (For what it's worth, if kept, the box would have to be deleted and recreated from scratch. There's more wrong than right, there.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 300 (number) per RJH.  --LambiamTalk 19:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Still better than nothing.--Taida 20:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 300 (number)#330s. As far as I can tell, 330 has just two interesting mathematical properties and WP:NUM suggests at least three are needed for a number to merit its own article. Anton Mravcek 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. 330 is pentagonal and pentatope, and appears in Pascal's triangle at 11, 5 (and of course 330, 2). CompositeFan 23:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 300. PrimeFan 21:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 300. I don't think the various properties add up WP:NUM. Eluchil404 07:44, 13 July 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.