Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetradecimal

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 redirect to List of numeral systems#Standard positional numeral systems. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 15:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tetradecimal[edit]

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

It was redirected to List of numeral systems#Standard positional numeral systems but I'm not so sure it's not notable. Just because this article doesn't cite very many reliable sources doesn't mean there aren't very many. Maybe the person who wrote the first source at [1] gained their knowledge from reliable sources but didn't cite them in that page. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Blackbombchu (talk) 00:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Blackbombchu (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The cited applications don't seem important and base-14 is not important in their operation anyway. I can't find any references to the importance of base-14 on Google. CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

redirect, i.e. restore the redirect. Though it has only one article linking to it it‘s a plausible search term and redirect. But certainly not independently notable, unlike bases such as 8, 12, 16 which have been or are still used.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Not independently notable, but redirects are cheap. Also, restoring an article for the sole purpose of putting it up for deletion seems kind of WP:POINTy, or at least a weird abuse of process. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I put it up for deletion because I thought that maybe it wasn't worthy of deletion and the discussion was going to form a consensus that it wasn't. I thought it was fine because Tom (LT) gave me permission to undo their redirect and nominate for deletion at Talk:Double_circulatory_system#Possible_deletion_of_article. Blackbombchu (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Not a base that is notable for an article like hexadecimal is but a valid search term nonetheless. Also, note that base 14 is, or has been, in actual use so not just theoretical in nature. DeVerm (talk) 05:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per David Eppstein. Double sharp (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2016 (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.