Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/593 (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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

593 (number)

Delete. WP:NUM says we should list numbers up to 200. I see no compelling reason to keep a nearly empty article on what appears to be a relatively uninteresting number. I would have speedily deleted this, but I'm not sure it fits into any of the listed criteria. Fropuff 04:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Hillel 04:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Changing my vote (in all good faith) to "weak keep" following Ruby's amazing efforts to save the article.
Keep - It can be proved with mathematical certainty that this number exists. Cyde Weys 04:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd love to see your proof! Kevin 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be proved that my left big toe exists... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nominator's perfect description evinces unparalleled eloquence, and I find myself unable to disagree in even the least particular. Ikkyu2 04:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fight systemic anti-numeral bias in Wikipedia!!! --Cyde Weys 04:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. The improvements to the article clearly assert the notability of 593 as a right prime, a good prime, and a number used in a song with album sales > 5000. -Ikkyu2 05:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the legitimate successor to 592. Ruby 04:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but it has less hits on Google. — Hillel 04:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Only because of the systemic bias against prime numbers in the media. --Cyde Weys 04:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Take a look at the article now and tell me its not a keeper. Ruby 05:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate Ruby's good faith efforts to improve the article, but no one can change the fact that this is a relatively uninteresting number. I could write just as many "interesting facts" about any given number. Why not write articles on 592 and 594 as well? If someone wants to change the policy to have an article on every number up to 1000, then I'm fine with keeping it. -- Fropuff 07:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but I find no reason to doubt the existance of said number... Nick Catalano (Talk) 05:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are we going to list all the interesting prime numbers? Kevin 05:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the effort to save this one was interesting at least. Ruby 05:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I know WP:NUM is not official policy, but it's a very reasonable policy to go by. Though the page has certainly improved since the initial nomination, 593 does not rise to "remarkable mathematical property" status. Vslashg 06:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Weak keep. I personally don't like the precedent, but WP:NUM explicitly mentions the page 284 (number), which inarguably has less information than 593 (number). If this article survives AfD, 500 (number) should be fixed to link to it. Vslashg 06:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, look at all that good stuff about 593 in the 500 article! Ruby 06:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget WP:IAR. Also remember, policies are flexible. I think it's about time to update WP:NUM and include more numbers, don't you? Wikipedia has grown a lot since it was last looked at. Remember, help fight systemic anti-numeral bias on Wikipedia! --Cyde Weys 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do forget WP:IAR; it is an escape hatch for emergencies. This is not one. 284 (number), like 641 (number), is the smallest integer in a quite sparse class. Septentrionalis 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's make more number articles! We all know that Wikipedia has continuum-many bytes of storage. :) Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I hate to resort to the Pokémon test, but... if freaking Golbat has its own article, freaking 593 deserves its own article. Not a ton of stuff is more notable than a number, right? Matt Yeager 07:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was expecting to vote delete before I read it, but the article won me over. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 08:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A list of properties does not an interesting number make. That's to say, at least not significantly more interesting than any other number. There are no boring numbers! If we don't follow WP:NUM on this it would set an extremely bad precedent. Zunaid 14:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete thre are infinite numbers -Doc ^ask? 15:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So what if there are infinite numbers? There's only one 593! I don't see your point. Help fight systemic anti-numeral bias on Wikipedia! --Cyde Weys 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a prime number, the article has a good description of its characteristics. Afonso Silva 15:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per I, the mathie. --Perfecto 16:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a number with interesting properties, and the article is actually quite fun. Fun. Are we allowed that on Wikipedia? Jcuk 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an interesting prime number JoJan 16:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article asserts the subject's notability as a prime number, which has been verified -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there are infinitely many prime numbers. If that's enough for an article, then why not just turn AfD into a Sieve of Eratosthenes? Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 19:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Seeing as how there are now over 900K articles I don't think it could hurt to have a few dozen more articles on prime numbers with interesting characteristics. All of this is patently verifiable (actually, provable), which makes it the best encyclopedic content possible. --Cyde Weys 15:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after viewing the article establishing its notability. Good job. I might just even remove the stub tag from it. Turnstep 16:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harmless. Ashibaka tock 20:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Prime number, has some information from other sources. An "infinitely large" prime would NOT work because who has written an article about a 10 digit prime? Calwatch 05:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all keepers using the "interesting" rationale: (I hope I'm not wasting my time with this, please read and consider carefully). There are infinitely many prime numbers. There are infinitely many prime numbers with "interesting" properties (a subjective measure in any case). There are infinitely many prime numbers with more "interesting" (and "more interesting") properties than 593. Lastly, Wikipedia is not infinite. We delete articles all the time on the basis of being non-notable ← and by this definition this number satisfies being non-notable (as I've just demonstrated, I admit my proof wasn't mathematically rigorous). Please consider whether "interesting" is a justifiable reason for keeping this article per what has been shown here. Thanks! Zunaid 11:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: well obviously Wikipedia needs a lot more disk space so we can keep articles for this number, as well as many other interesting numbers. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Even though I claim to be a deletionist, I find waiving around Wikipedia is not infinite to be just as annoying as waving around Wikipedia is not paper. In fact, to quote the former guideline, "While it is true that Wikipedia is not infinite, it must also be said that deleting an article does nothing to reduce the amount of space taken up by that article. All deleted content on Wikipedia remains stored on the servers." This particular number isn't any old integer, it has an assertion of significance, and it has a decent article written about it. I can't ask much more of it. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (and I'm an inclusionist). There are an infinite number of primes, about half of them are "good" (as the list will show) - a feature which is in any case interesting only in a small context not mentioned here. Septentrionalis 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable. Its sometimes useful to look at these things. Think of this as an OLEIS for integers. Comment to all deleters: OLEIS is the "On-line Encyclopaedia of Integer sequences", its considered to be an important resource for math. Sure, there are an infinite number of sequences, (and then some), but it is very useful to be able to look them up, if faced with one that you have in front of you, and you don't know what it is. For grins, check out the OLEIS 100K party -- that's right, they are 1/10 'th the size of all of WP, and 10 x larger than all WP math articles put together. linas 01:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable number. Important for keeping 592 and 594 from bumping into each other. Good rewrite by Ruby saves the article. Wikipedia is not paper, so why delete a perfectly good article? Herostratus 08:54, 3 February 2006 (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.