Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65536

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, with a rename likely. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

65536

No notability. Article had been PROD, but this was removed by an author who states "65535 (whose main claim to fame is being 65536-1) was kept at AfD" - however, 65535 is classed as notable in its own right for several reasons (Mersenne number / max number in 16 bit binary), and numerous examples of use are given (see 65535 (number)) - so I believe that this argument isn't correct. Also, stating that "because article x (which is similar) was kept, that therefore means this one is also valid" is also incorrect. CultureDrone (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nominator has withdrawn nomination - see below for withdrawal reasons and discussion of AfD status. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuetral seems to meet WP:NUMBER, but i'll hold off on an actual vote for now. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 10:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to 65536 (number) - can be expanded; fills the gap between our articles on 65535 (number) and 65537 (number). Gandalf61 (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ... so I have done some expansion. 65536 now has more information in it than 65537 (number) and is better referenced than 65535 (number). Gandalf61 (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Information" doesn't necessarily translate into notability. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article meets the notability criteria of Wikipedia:NUMBER#Integers. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and do whatever renaming is required by syle guidelines). The nominator has underlined the fact that 65535 derives its notability from 65536, so if 65535 is notable 65536 must be too. Both being a Mersenne number and the maximum number in 16 bit binary are the result of it being 65536-1 (i.e. $2^{16}$ -1). The argument is not "because article x (which is similar) was kept, that therefore means this one is also valid" it is "because article x (which is on a subject which derives its notability from subject y) was kept, that therefore means article y is also valid". Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't state that 65535 derives notability from 65536 - actually, I was trying to state the exact opposite. I stated that 65535 is notable in its own right for various reasons, but that this doesn't therefore infer notability for 65535+1. CultureDrone (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Saying that it is a Mersenne number is saying that it derives notability from 65536. A Mersenne number is defined as being one less than a power of two, so it derives its notability from the higher number, and being the maximum number representable by a certain number of bits also comes about in the same way, by being one less than a power of two. Just because powers of two don't have such a catchy name as Mersenne or Fermat numbers doesn't alter the fact that the latter numbers are defined by the more fundamental powers of two. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. And 65536 is not a Mersenne number, but 65535 is. --Craw-daddy | T | 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point. The claimed notability of Mersenne numbers is inherited from the more notable powers of two, such as 65536, by which they are defined. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No you missed my point. Mersenne numbers are notable because several scholarly papers have been written about them, and about their properties (e.g. some, but not all of them are prime numbers). But 65536 does not inherit notability from 65535 (a Mersenne number). Nor does 65535 inherit notability from 65536. If 65536 is notable because it's one more than 65535, why doesn't 65538 inherit notability from 65535 (a Mersenne number) and 3 (a prime number)? Surely the sum of two notable numbers must be even more notable than either one, right? --Craw-daddy | T | 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really claiming that powers of 2 haven't had scholarly papers written about them? I'm not claiming that 65536 is notable because it's one more than 65535 - the reverse is true. 65535 is notable for being a Mersenne number, whose definition is to be one less than a more notable number. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I support the move to 65536 (number). As the article shows, because it's a power of two (two to the 16th power, or two being doubled fifteen times), it is the upper limit for some computing applications. It's also the zip code for Lebanon, Missouri, although that need not be mentioned in the article. 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Keep and rename. Per Gandalf's comment above. Renee (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - I look forward to revisiting this article in a few months time and finding out all the encyclopaedic information that has been added :-) CultureDrone (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is indiscriminate info. Note that if we continue with these silly articles on natural numbers, we will have an infinite number of them as one can prove that there are no insignificant numbers: if there were any insignificant numbers then the lowest of them would be significant for having this property - repeat. Information of this sort belongs in the articles on Mersenne numbers and the like. At best, one might merge them into a List of natural numbers. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Comment Let's delete John F. Kennedy, because if we continue having articles on individual persons, we will eventually have one on every person who has ever existed. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Our notability benchmark for having articles on individual integers is the criteria at Wikipedia:NUMBER#Integers. This article meets those criteria. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 60000 (number) where it is already discussed.—RJH (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What do you do if a "delete" !vote is placed after a withdrawal? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not sure one of the items added about 65536 is correct. A 16-bit bus can handle binary values of 0000000000000000 (zero) to 1111111111111111 (65535). Whilst this is indeed 65536 combinations, I don't believe that zero is a valid memory address, which implies that it can only directly address 65535 locations, not 65536. However, please let me know if I;m wrong :-) CultureDrone (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, depending on the architecture, zero is a perfectly valid memory address.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 65536 is 2**16, which is a terribly influential number in computers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have a separate article, 16-bit for that. Perhaps we should have the binary (10000000000000000) and hex (10000) representations as articles too? Colonel Warden (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because we have so many people looking for the binary and hex representations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It could hardly be less than the readership for this article, which is the smallest I recall seeing for a contested Wikipedia article. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Important computing number, 2**16, occurs often 16-bit limit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCreator (talk • contribs)

Comment - amazing how much debate can be generated about a single number... Anyway, we now seem to have two articles - 65536 which is the article, and 65536 (number) which is a redirect to the 60000 (number) page where the number has two entries, but incidentally neither of which are clickable links. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once this AfD has run its course we can, if it survives, move 65536 to 65536 (number) where it belongs. Moving an article while an AfD is in progress can cause confusion. Speaking of which, I am confused as to the status of this AfD now that you have withdrawn your nomination. Does that close the AfD ? Gandalf61 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing a nomination doesn't close an AfD where there's others !voting delete. It could be closed as WP:SNOW by someone daring enough, but it's much more likely it will stay open for the normal length.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we let the AfD run its course. As CultureDrone's withdrawal is now in the middle of the discussion, I have added a comment at the top to flag this - in my experience, folks sometimes read the nomination and then skip to the bottom of the discussion, so they could miss the withdrawal. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2008 (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.