Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/363 (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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 363 (number)

Not notable linas 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Qaz (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. --Dvyost 06:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to 300 (number) in accordance to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers policy -- Egil 07:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • WikiProject Numbers actually says no such thing, as explained in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/427 (number). Uncle G 12:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • A redirect to 300 is clumsy and dishonest. If, for some reason I can not imagine, I wanted to go to an article about 363 or see if we had one and instead I was just dropped off at 300 with no explanation, I would be utterly confused. Qaz (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        Why? Did you check the 300 page? It does indeed mention 363. Go to the WikiProject Numbers talk page to discuss. -- Egil 14:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I did go to the 300 page and I did not see it. If I just missed it I apologize. Qaz (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)*
          It is located between three hundred and sixty two and three hundred and sixty four. Hope that helps. -- Egil 09:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • If I type Paul Erdos and I get redirected, that tells me I misspelled his name. But if I went through the trouble of typing "363 (number)" I would expect to either see a page about 363 or a page saying "No article about this topic." PrimeFan 18:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment — I believe that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers policy does actually recommend grouping in 100s after about 200. At any rate, there are a pair of pages that have ranges of integers up to 1000: Table of prime factors and Table of divisors. Would it make sense to go through all the unresolved links and make them redirects to the appropriate 100s pages? — RJH 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • WHat unbreslved links? Rich Farmbrough 02:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • THe policy is to start with range pages and allow number to "grow"- if they are big enough they can be split off. Rich Farmbrough 02:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete sigh Another Random Number --JAranda | yeah 00:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Presently, there is only one interesting things to say about the number, WikiProject Numbers requires at least three interesting or one tremendously remarkable (i.e., odd perfect number). PrimeFan 18:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC) This number being on the Rhind papyrus sounds interesting, I would like to see that elaborated. But the facts that depend on either the metric system or the Imperial system probably don't need to be listed in this article. For the time being, I'm voting neutral. PrimeFan 21:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. If 427 (above) can be speedied, what makes this different? If not, then delete. PacknCanes 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    427 should not have been speedied. Rich Farmbrough 01:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Real number Klonimus 02:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing interesting. I doubt a redirect is useful. Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Abstain for the moment until I have time to assess Rich's work. It does have lots of information added, so I'd urge everyone to take a new look at the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Weak keep. Some of the items listed on the article are far-fetched, but alltogether, keeping in mind that it may expand further, perhaps enough can be said about this number to make a small article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article essentially reiterates its title. Chick Bowen 23:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have improved the article somewhat. Rich Farmbrough 09:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

*Keep--Gaff talk 00:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC) On second thought, delete unless expert opinion from the number project folks says otherwise. To my read the standard that has been established is:Integers: Continuous from -1 to 200. Multiples of 100 from 300 to 900, then multiples of 1000 to 9000. Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 1010, higher than that only if they have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix) and numbers with some remarkable mathematical property. --Gaff talk 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Changing my mind (again). Keep it. Its a nice looking article with some interesting information. (sorry for my waffling).--Gaff talk 00:07, 15 October 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.