Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi (first 100000 digits)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pi (first 100000 digits)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't fit a speedy deletion criterion technically, but really? A data dump of 100000 digits is not an encyclopedia article. Fram (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: IMO it fits (just barely) into A7. Seem plez 11:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could well be. I try to interpret these rules quite strictly, but I will not complain about any admin who deletes this as A7, A3, A1, G6, ... Fram (talk) 11:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm literally wiping the tears from my eyes from laughing. Possibly the greatest (non) article I've ever seen on WP! Mercy! Yes, delete as non-encyclopedic. But if kept, then moved to Pi (first 100,000 digits)... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pi is especially notable and there are many books about it and its digits. Our main article is too large at over 150K and so there is naturally a family of related spinoffs including whimsical topics like six nines in pi. The page in question seems to be a reasonable appendix too and if people don't want to read it, they don't have to. The nomination doesn't provide a satisfactory reason to delete – just the argument to avoid of WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Our policies such as WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE indicate that deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't expect anyone to actually need a fully spelled out policy reason on this one, but I underestimated some people. None of your usual alphabet soup indicates why this article should be kept, and thus aren't helpful. Policy: "Encyclopedic content" is the main aspect of WP:NOT, no matter what the essay ATA says: "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE makes it clear that articles should be contextualized summaries, not data dumps. And of course WP:N: you are arguing that pi is notable, which is a "sky is blue" argument. There is nothing though that makes the first 100,000 digits especially notable and inclusion-worthy, they don't get special attention, have no mathematical value the first 90,000 or 125,000 don't share... A database dump with a nice round number is not something worth preserving on enwiki. Fram (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is a summary as pi has been calculated to 10 trillion digits. The first 100K are both manageable and notable; I have added a source which demonstrates this. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, a summary is not "taking the first 100,000 characters of something and dropping the remainder". Fram (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The source/factoid of one person recalling the first 100k digits can go in the main Pi article. It doesn't need a stand-alone page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this can be speedy deleted G4 as it is 99% identical to the article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First 100000 digits of pi. Fram (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi to One Million Digits. Redirects from such articles have also been deleted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 14#Pi to (number) places. Fram (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First 100000 digits of pi/old. Another, very old one. Fram (talk) 13:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am finding good sources for the topic, despite Fram's disruption, and so reasonable time should be permitted for such work. If Fram wanted to try to speedy this they should have thought of that before opening a deletion discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please either provide evidence of my disruption or retract your personal attack. Removing blatantly wrong information from the article[1] isn't disruption, though adding such information might be considered disruptive (though AGF requires us to see it as a simple mistake). Fram (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY and WP:RAWDATA, with no prejudice against creating an article on the digits of pi containing information on distribution etc as unearthed by Andrew. There's little reason to focus specifically on 100000 digits, however, and certainly the raw data dump of digits seems to fit under WP:NOT. I'll further comment that some of the information added to the article appears to already be in the main article on Pi. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The small bits of sourced information added by Andrew Davidson can, and in some cases already is, covered on the main Pi article. Even with those sources, this is not a reasonable WP:SPLIT from the main topic. Rorshacma (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article by any stretch of the imagination. Anything worth discussing about the statistical distribution of digits, people attempting to memorize them, etc., can go in the actual article Pi. In fact, Pi#Modern_quest_for_more_digits already says that the 100,000 mark was achieved in 1961, and Pi#Memorizing_digits already mentions Akira Haraguchi, who also appears in Piphilology. Moreover, the introduction to Pi mentions the conjecture that it is a normal number, so the topic of the digit distribution is already present as well. Everything in Pi (first 100000 digits) either violates policy or belongs somewhere else. XOR'easter (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- As pointed out above this article consists of a data dump, which isn't what Wikipedia is for, and a few trivial factoids that are already covered in the article on Pi. The title is also useless as a redirect. Reyk _YO! 23:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above, WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Just as we don't include lyrics in a song article, this doesn't belong. Retswerb (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the fact that what wikipedia is not overrides any slight coverage it may have. Though I would like to note, seeing this article made me smile. Footlessmouse (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy Delete as G4. Any speedy deletion criterion is also a valid reason for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Besides G4, Wikipedia is not a raw-data repository for non-encyclopedia calculations. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the first 100,000 denary digits are of no particular significance on maths academia, so this is a pop maths topic. As such we'd need a lot of good GNG coverage of this particular range of digits and we don't have it. Surprised this wasn't speedied as even if the topic were notable, a list of 100,000 pseudorandom (more formally, hypothesised to be normal) characters of anything is never appropriate in any article. — Bilorv (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic WP:NOTSTATS. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Needs sections, too many run-on sentences~~ snicker Well, delete I mean. Paradigmatic example of an unsuitable data dump. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:25, 2 December 2020 (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.