Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 (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. Guerillero | My Talk 05:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2013 (number)[edit]

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

Article about an arbitrarily chosen number, listing two trivial properties. I was going to suggest a merge to 2000 (number), but the properties are too trivial to include even there. Also nominating 2014 (number), which lists no properties of the number at all. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 07:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable per WP:WINI. ///EuroCarGT 17:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even an assertion of notability for 2014 and 2013 is just happenstance. Neonchameleon (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. As the editor who added the two properties in question (removing some even-more-boring properties) I agree that they are not enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) (which asks for three properties, not just two, and asks that they be interesting properties). I think a reasonable proxy for interestingness is that the number in question be among the first half-dozen values in an OEIS sequence tagged with "nice" (or alternatively one that is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article). 2013 is indeed early in the two OEIS sequences listed, but they are not nice. And I was unable to find any better properties to list. A similar search for 2014 turns up two properties labeled as nice that I think are still too specialized to be truly interesting (area under Motzkin excursions, and indexes of dodecahedral numbers that are sums of two other dodecahedral numbers), and that's it. So again, not three interesting properties. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have to say that I find these curious properties of numbers rather interesting but I will leave voting to others. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability requirements for numbers. The alternative would be a merge to 2000 (number) but the numbers currently listed there generally have more interesting and unusual properties than 2013. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2014 (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.