Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixth power

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. Mainly per the "papers" argument Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth power[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. - Mr X 17:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Not notable. (Side comment: Fifth power (algebra) would seem to fall under the same argument too). --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 18:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MathSciNet finds 20 papers with "sixth powers" in their titles (all of which look relevant) and 16 more with "sixth power" instead (many of which also look relevant). Easy pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add a comment: we have nearly 50 articles in Category:Base-dependent integer sequences, I think mostly on adequately-notable topics. But, among integer sequences, this one is far more significant mathematically than any of those. Yes, at some point adding more articles on the kth powers would become silly, but I think k = 6 is not that point. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Exponentiation, no indication of coverage that isn't WP:MILL. (side comment: Zenzizenzizenzic, a very different article, may be interesting to readers here.) Power~enwiki (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per David Eppstein. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per convincing arguments brought forward by David. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- To add some detail, Exponentiation and 6 (number) may be notable individually, but that doesn't make this so, even if there are a few papers that have it in their title. A better solution would probably be to list any relevant trivia (like that added at Seventh power recently) either at the page on exponentiation or on a page specifically dedicated to facts about small powers of integers. Keeping separate pages about every possible small power is just silly. --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per David Eppstein above. Loraof (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notability established; no policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2017 (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.