Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of divisors

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 keep. DES (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table of divisors

Table of divisors (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unlike list of primes, which was correctly kept because it was not a numerical table, this article is a numerical table. Could maybe be transwikied to Wikibooks. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of prime factors. --Trovatore 04:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. An obviously computer generated table of totally useless data. It's a clear case of WP is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Silly rabbit 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Silly rabbit. Do not transwiki this useless data.  --LambiamTalk 06:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Similar to my comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Table_of_prime_factors, I feel this table is useful in its entirety, not so much for its individual entries. Definitely not "totally useless data", as far as I'm concerned. Doctormatt 07:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete ot transwiki, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Kusma (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Transwiki or keep. This is no doubt a useful table, obviously verifiable, but hardly subject to revision by later editors. The simultaneous claims that this information is both mathematically trivial and "indiscriminate information" only shows that "indiscriminate information" is the new "I don't like it". - Smerdis of Tlön 14:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Most of the mathematics articles on Wikipedia are inaccessible to beginners. This is one of the few that isn't. For many people it is helpful to see numerous worked out examples of concepts like Divisor function and, as Doctormatt points out, some are intrigued by the patterns and motivated to learn more. And there are possibilities for editing (I'd get rid of unqualified "composite" entries, for example. They just add clutter). Tabular information used to be an important part of mathematical literature. There is no reason to expunge it from an encyclopedia.--agr 15:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This entry contains sufficient explanatory text so that it does not fall into the "indiscriminate collection of information" category. Also, the usefulness of this table warrants its inclusion in Wikipedia. AlphaEta 17:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep per the other Keep comments above. Newyorkbrad 20:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Encyclopedic information about numbers.--Patrick 23:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comments First of all, this all needs to be referenced presumably, or at least the source code used to generate the page needs to be posted in order to conduct an audit of it. Otherwise, as a reference about numbers, it's unverifiable. Secondly, I find it a bit of a stretch to say that this is any kind of useful reference at all. But be that as it may, the WP:NOT policy specifically states:
9. Statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. Articles which are primarily comprised of statistical data may be better suited for inclusion in Wikisource as freely available reference material for the construction of related encyclopedic articles on that topic. Infoboxes or tables should also be considered to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. (From WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.)
This, it would seem, is exactly the kind of "long and sprawling page" that the WP policy warns against. If we don't draw the line here, then where do we draw it? Would the first million digits of π be considered "useful information"? The prime factorization of the first 100,000 integers? Why not? Silly rabbit 00:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Sigh... Once again, mathematical information is threatened with deletion from a Wikimedia project. Silly rabbit quotes a policy that suggests moving to Wikisource, but that site has also deleted massive amounts of mathematical information already. I suggest transwikiing to the English Mathematics Wikia (it is also under the GFDL, so the move should probably be made in a way that preserves [at least a record of] the edit history). - dcljr (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Well-organized useful tables to give overview of information about divisors which we have many articles about. I don't think it will "be confusing to readers and reduce the readibility and neatness of our articles." It might be shortened but that's not to discuss here. PrimeHunter 12:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or Transwiki and add a link to in a proper place. Encyclopedic info that could be useful, as Doctormatt's comment. Dan Gluck 19:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. That information may be correct, it may be useful, but it is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place for such information. It is more appropriate at Wikisource. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: It has been pointed out at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Table_of_prime_factors that Wikisource does not accept this kind of material. See s:Wikisource:What_is_Wikisource?#What do we include and exclude at Wikisource?:
"What do we include and exclude at Wikisource?
Some basic criteria for texts excluded from Wikisource are:
3. Mathematical data, formulas, and tables"
Also could I make a procedural comment?: since these two articles are very similar, and the cases for deletion are very similar, it might have been more helpful to consider them together so as to avoid having two parallel discussions. Geometry guy 09:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Perhaps we should simply change that policy. Many very extensive non-mathematics tabulations find their home here--see Special:Longpages. This is one of the places where WP NOT PAPER might actually apply: having articles on every local politician can detract from the notability of those we include, but having this material detracts from nothing. That said, perhaps another wikiproject is needed, but that would be a while DGG 03:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some reasonable points have been given for deletion; but this is an unobjectionable look-up resource as far as I'm concerned. Charles Matthews 19:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful mathematical table which belongs in an encyclopedia. Also a great example of why "verifiable" should not always mean "attributable to a reliable source". Anyone with a calculator can verify much of the information in this table without having to consult any other source. DHowell 04:22, 31 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.