Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65539 (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 delete. Krimpet (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 65539 (number)

65539 (number) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Per WP:NUMBER, articles on numbers over 1000 are discouraged unless they have three interesting properties, which are also fairly rare. We do not, for example, have articles on every prime; we have a list of primes.

Delete Four properties are claimed here.

1. is arbitrary; this is a Fermat prime +2; every number is a Fermat prime + something.
2. , the twin prime, really adds little to (1). Between them they amount to one, (maybe 1.5) interesting property.
3. is trivial; given Goldbach's conjecture, it amounts to 65539 has digits which sum to an even number less a hundred trillion; half of all the numbers which are not too long to be page titles.
4. is numerology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete — Interesting properties for 5-digit numbers can be listed on 10000 (number). But these all look rather trivial. — RJH (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Every large number is special in several trivial ways. Edison 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NUMBER - not nearly special enough Blueboar 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because none of the items is particularly special. YechielMan 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete violates WP:NUMBER, not special enough to deserve an article Hut 8.5 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, even if it is over 9000. =^_^= Fascinating notes, but too arbitrary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete garners a great big "So what". JuJube 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's worth pointing out that we don't have a separate article on 65536 (it redirects to 10000 (number)), even though that figure is far more important, especially in the computing field. *** Crotalus *** 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • There is, however, an article on 65535 (number). — RJH (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • 65535 has multiple notable properties (polygon constructible with compass and straightedge, number-theoretic connection to both Mersenne numbers and Fermat numbers, largest unsigned 16-bit number, related limits in many programs). Most computer programmers will instantly recognize it. Per Septentrionalis, 65539's listed properties are much more arbitrary and trivial. —David Eppstein 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be better to redirect 65536 to power of two? PrimeHunter 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because Interesting number paradox isn't a policy =). cab 00:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NUMBER. —David Eppstein 03:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Being next to the largest known Fermat prime (not Fermat number as the article claims) is not interesting. There is no article on Robert Wadlows neighbour (at least I don't think so!), and twin primes of that size are common. PrimeHunter 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NUMBER. —dima/talk/ 04:40, 28 April 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.