Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3055 (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 delete. Mailer Diablo 03:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3055 (number)[edit]

Delete as a non-notable number as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers criteria. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was put on {{Prod}}, which was deleted immediately by the creator of the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - NN StephenFalken 00:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. You have got to be kidding. Carlo 00:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DE1E7E = 14,556,798 converted into decimal notation. Redirect to 14,556,798. the.crazy.russian (T) (C) (E) 00:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No offense to Leet fans, but this vote reminds me of those people who spell "Boobies" in their calculators. Karm a fist^{Save Wikipedia} 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the numbers WikiProject. --light darkness^(talk) 00:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per wikinumbers. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Czar Dragon 01:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments . Reyk 01:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But seriously... Deizio 02:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but its not as bad as some other year-articles I have seen. We have articles for each year going WAYYY to far into the future. Weatherman90 02:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a number, not a year. Specific guidelines or policy on years might be different. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiProject. This will definitely grow larger. --Ter e nc e Ong 03:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Joelito 04:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Khoikhoi 06:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's just a number. JIP | Talk 07:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A number, not a year yet, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers.--Dakota ~ ° 08:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not listed on List of numbers or linked to by any mathematical page. Non-notable number, whatever that might be. ProhibitOnions
Delete per all. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 3000 (number). — RJH 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I will be the sole inclusionist vote on this one, I guess. 3055 is a verifiable number that can be proven to exist. That's more than you can say about 99% of Wikipedia articles. Prove to me that Saddam Hussein exists ... ohh that's right, you can't. But the existence of the number 3055 follows directly from the fundamental arithematic axions. Cyde Weys 17:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There is an infinity of numbers, but there's no space for an infinity of articles. Thus existence alone is not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. TheJabberwock 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but there aren't infinite four-digit numbers. In fact, there's not so many of them. --Cyde Weys 06:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you seriously want to extend the ceiling on number articles with no signifigance, you might want to shoot for three digits first, not four. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. There's a real chance that you'll get your way, but I have to say it's small. Melchoir 07:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We could ask the developers to have the server autogenerate an article page for every request of the form "N (number)", where "N" stands for a non-empty sequence of decimal digits. That way Wikipedia will have an infinite number of articles! Lambiam ^Talk 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'll join you on this one Cyde. Did you see what that number is in hex? And its found in quite of few lists of integers. Pretty significant stuff I'd say. --BostonMA 17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's "BEF" in hex. How is that any more notable than "BEE" (i.e. Bee or 3054), which doesn't have an article? Ral315 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bee already has its own page. Why would it need another one? --BostonMA 21:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few lists? Are you aware that OEIS currently contains 116943 lists and counting? Being in only 41 is pathetic. Melchoir 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's notable because it is in only 41 lists. Lambiam ^Talk 00:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a Wikiproject Numbers subsection of "non-notable numbers" or something. Let it incubate in there for awhile. To me, numbers are inherently notable, although most of them don't have alot of content you can say about them, usually not enough for an article of their own. Karm a fist^{Save Wikipedia} 18:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia has enough articles about subjects without any real-world existence. As Leopold Kronecker said, "God made the integers, all else is the work of man"; and while the underlying theological debate can't be resolved, the existence and singular importance of integers should be clear. Monicasdude 18:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 3000 (number) (which probably ought to be 3000s (number). It's a charming article, but if we keep it we have to let everyone make an article about their favourite number. Peter Grey 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiProject criteria. Note that BostonMA has been campaigning for "keep" votes. --Carnildo 19:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT (indiscriminate collection of information) and because of the spam from BostonMA. ---J.Smith 19:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and shame on BostonMA for spamming in favor of keeping this. Ral315 (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. mikka (t) 21:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pa Computerjoe 's talk 21:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Ugur Basak 22:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the factorization is useful, even if it is trivial. Although arguably that would be wikimath.org or something, but as that has yet to exist, most numbers tend to have certain properties in number theory which are encyclopedic to describe. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 23:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Every integer has a factorization. Melchoir 03:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to do a little bit more research on that (unless you're counting the trivial case of the number itself and one). --Cyde Weys 06:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am. And prime numbers are hardly trivial; if this number were prime, it would be more notable than it is now. Still deleteable though. Melchoir 07:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my argument above. TheJabberwock 23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge it to a list of numbers in the 3000 range. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 00:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Come on, gang. It's easy enough to prove that all positive integers are notable. They're well-ordered. If there were non-notable integers, they'd form a set. Then that set would have a least element. And being the smallest non-notable positive integer would, of course, be notable. And that's a contradiction. So there can't be any non-notable positive integers. So there. Monicasdude 01:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: How silly. Was this article created to make some point? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it had any unique properties in number theory, as Natalinasmpf describes, then it should have an article, but otherwise, there comes a point where details are too trivial to include. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3055 is the unique integer between 3054 and 3056. It is also the unique product of 611 and 5. Michael Jackson doesn't even have a unique name people seem to think he is notable enough for an article. --BostonMA 23:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you arguing to write a permastub on every integer? Melchoir 03:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --hydnjo talk 20:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (or merge per Bookofjude, inter al.) (although I always have wondered about what comes between 3054 and 3056; I always thought it was 12). Joe 22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the obvious consensus above. This should've been deleted already. Cool3 00:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. So it's boring, so what? It is just a number, but it has various mathematical properties associated with it. One thing my education taught me about math is that it's too complicated for me to understand. There's probably a lot you could write about this single number. People complain about how you could go on writing about numbers forever, since they're infinite. That's obviously true, but I'm not going to complain if that means we end up with millions, billions, or even trillions of number articles. Bring 'em on. To me this is like a guy who inherits a big pile of money and complains: "That's too much, I can never count all that..." A little wisdom tells you it's nonsense to worry about such things. Also, a number could potentially fall into an automatically notable category, like natural species in biology, natural languages, planets, stars, that kind of thing: just by existing it has some notability attached to it, since it's automatically going to have some scientific significance. Everyking 06:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Every species, language, planet, and star on Wikipedia has already been written about elsewhere; otherwise we wouldn't know about it. Nobody has written anything about 3055. You propose that we could make up stuff to write about 3055; that's called original research. It is not the job of an encyclopedia. Melchoir 08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think anything that is patently provable using the laws of mathematics can be considered "original research". Mathematics is really an entirely different realm than the rest of the encyclopedia because in mathematics things can be and are proven 100%. --Cyde Weys 08:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - To the contrary, the history of mathematics is full of incorrect proofs and assertions; now, even after a theorem is proven, often it is not accepted without reservation. Whether a mathematical statement is "really" true or not, Wikipedia requires verification of its proof. Now, I am aware that in practice, mathematics pages contain some trivial original research, especially number articles, and we tend to look the other way. But an entire article filled with the stuff, and using it as a justification to exist, is completely and absolutely unacceptable. Melchoir 08:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no such thing as an incorrect proof. Either a proof is a proof or it contains logical errors in which case it's not a proof at all. Can you provide any references for the kind of stuff you're talking about? --Cyde Weys 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Classification of finite simple groups, Four color theorem, Fermat's last theorem. Melchoir 09:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        You know, I was almost going to say, "And don't say Fermat's last theorem", in my post you just responded to. I had actually typed it out and thought better of it and deleted that part. You do know all Fermat did was saying that he "proved" it without offering up any evidence whatsoever, right? --Cyde Weys 09:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I know. Asserting the existence of a proof is, sadly, not the same thing as having a proof. We Wikipedians, being a wiser sort, prefer to demand verification. Melchoir 09:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Fermat claimed to have a proof, but didn't offer it. Andrew Wiles actually did have a proof, but his first version was incorrect. --Carnildo 05:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody has written anything about this number? How can that be? Recently I read about this kid who was able to recite pi out to over 8,000 digits...nobody has ever factored out the number 3055 before, or written its Roman numeral, and published it somewhere? Everyking 08:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are welcome to look for a source. Melchoir 09:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I won't pretend to be able to interpret it, but is this a source? It's linked right there in the article. Everyking 10:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a database query generated by computer and input by the author of the article. If that counts as a reference, you might as well have an "article" on every phrase in the English language by referencing Google searches. Melchoir 18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Silliness. linas 21:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Obvious reasons Nigelthefish 15:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WikiProject Numbers. Looking through the OEIS, it's in maybe two interesting lists. The number has no special properties unlike other existing number articles - it's not prime, perfect, square, culturally significant (see, for example, 42 (number) or 1138 (number), a taxicab number, triangular, or any of a large number of interesting, verifiable properties held by most of the numbers which have articles. In other words, unencyclopedic. Confusing Manifestation 03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --C S (Talk) 08:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete otherwise we'll be on our 2millionth article quicker than we though. Carlossuarez46 00:35, 22 March 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.