Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4294967295

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. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience ^t 18:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

4294967295

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources to indicate notability per WP:NUMBER. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're not completely unrelated, but I think that its properties as (1) biggest odd number of sides of a constructible regular polygon, (2) max unsigned int, and (3) reserved special Autonomous System Number [1] are distinct enough and interesting enough to satisfy a combination of criteria 1 (three interesting properties) and 2 (cultural significance) of WP:NUMBER. All are easily sourced so the fact that the article currently doesn't list those sources is irrelevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I see only two unrelated interesting properties, as David Eppsteins's (2) and (3) are consequences of it being equal to 2^32-1. (If I am to trust the article, (1) is a consequence of the factorization in Fermat primes). The cultural claim is somewhat weak, as it relies on it being max unsigned int. That being said, the properties are major, and for a number that high (above a billion), I would argue that it is still a good concentration of interesting properties. Tigraan (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not a mathematician but was "good at math" as a student. Over the years, I have developed a respect for David Eppstein's expertise in this field. I find his analysis here persuasive, and Tigraan's comments strengthen my opinion. I encourage those editors to improve and add a few sources to the article, Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've put in some references. It has quite a few geekish cultural significances. Also, is its presence in A222598 independent and sufficiently interesting? It is a "perfect totient number" (sequence A082897 in the OEIS) https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL6/Cohen2/cohen50.pdf but this doesn't mean what I first thought it did! Thincat (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.