Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5280 (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 was merge with 5000 (number), which I have done. Neil (►) 09:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 5280 (number)

I believe this number is not notable enough to have its own article, per WP:NUM#Before creating a new article. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete Doesn't meet WP:NUM, bt just barely with two interesting fact. I'm not too sure about the second one though, although complex mathematical figures always made my head spin...--Elfin341 02:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep until the U.S. stops using this system. Also the little note after the amount of feet in a mile is rather interesting. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 02:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I.E. Never. Mile is better than kilometer, but that doesn't matter here. TJ Spyke 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't see a country with a population of over 300,000,000 changing their system. There'd be way too much confusion, cost, etc. Cool Blue^{talk to me} 20:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing special about this number. TJ Spyke 02:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Elrith 04:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Well, there is a magazine called 5280, but I'm not sure how prominent it is. 5280 seems to be fairly popular in Denver as a name for various companies, but how important are they? I don't know. But heck, this article doesn't even bother to explain why there are 5280 feet in a mile. And I have no clue whatsoever the second bit of information is, or whether it's especially meaningful. FrozenPurpleCube 04:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  Fortunately, our article on mile does address the history question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep 5280 feet in a mile is still relevant even outside of the United States. Many countries still use the old system unofficially. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• week keep per M1ss1ontomars2k4. This article may serve some purpose as a pointer to the mile article, a mile is still a common unit of length in the UK as well. --Salix alba (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge to 5000 per RJM below. A sensible solution. --Salix alba (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to mile; nothing to see here at the moment. Kusma (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important number historically. It was chosen as the lowest common multiple of 3 so there are exactly 1760 Yards in a mile and of 16.5 so there are exactly 320 Rod (unit)s in a mile, saving generations of clerks and surveyers endless fractions in calculating land areas. An Acre is, of course, exactly 4 rods by 40 rods or the equivalent. Edison 16:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Surely the lowest common multiple of 3 is 3 (or if you're being pedantic, 6) — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • 3/16.5=.818181818181etc, while 6/16.5=.36363636etc. A number less than 5280 would have resulted in more complexity in the paper and pencil era. Had it been up to me I would have changed the length of the rod to 10 feet and made the mile 1000 yards. But then the acre would have changed. Spare the rod and spoil the mile. Edison 21:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge to mile. It does demonstrate the significance of the number (and is in fact very fascinating), but the only application that this number has is the number of feet in one mile. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The fact that the statute mile is 5280 feet is already mentioned in the article Mile, where it belongs, and there is nothing else to merge from here to there. Leaving this article be will only encourage the creation of articles like 63360 (number) (number of inches in a statute mile) and similar ones by precedent. The mathematical curiosity is totally non-notable as an isolated fact.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

  Merge to 5000 (number) per RJH below.  --Lambiam^Talk 05:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Merge with 5000_(number)#Selected numbers in the range 5001-5999. — RJH (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge with 5000 per above, numbers like 72² and 74² are of similar if not less notability Obscurans 02:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep There is enough useful info in the article, e.g. conversion to other bases and the formula, that does not fit in either mile or 5000. I found it interesting.--agr 10:22, 25 May 2007 (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.