Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65539 (number): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 02:33, 5 February 2023

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. Krimpet (talk) 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

65539 (number)

Contested prod. Per WP:NUMBER, articles on numbers over 1000 are discouraged unless they have three interesting properties, which are also fairly rare. We do not, for example, have articles on every prime; we have a list of primes.

Delete Four properties are claimed here.

is arbitrary; this is a Fermat prime +2; every number is a Fermat prime + something.
, the twin prime, really adds little to (1). Between them they amount to one, (maybe 1.5) interesting property.
is trivial; given Goldbach's conjecture, it amounts to 65539 has digits which sum to an even number less a hundred trillion; half of all the numbers which are not too long to be page titles.
is numerology. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Interesting properties for 5-digit numbers can be listed on 10000 (number). But these all look rather trivial. — RJH (talk) 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every large number is special in several trivial ways. Edison 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NUMBER - not nearly special enough Blueboar 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because none of the items is particularly special. YechielMan 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violates WP:NUMBER, not special enough to deserve an article Hut 8.5 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even if it is over 9000. =^_^= Fascinating notes, but too arbitrary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete garners a great big "So what". JuJube 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's worth pointing out that we don't have a separate article on 65536 (it redirects to 10000 (number)), even though that figure is far more important, especially in the computing field. *** Crotalus *** 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, however, an article on 65535 (number). — RJH (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - 65535 has multiple notable properties (polygon constructible with compass and straightedge, number-theoretic connection to both Mersenne numbers and Fermat numbers, largest unsigned 16-bit number, related limits in many programs). Most computer programmers will instantly recognize it. Per Septentrionalis, 65539's listed properties are much more arbitrary and trivial. —David Eppstein 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it be better to redirect 65536 to power of two? PrimeHunter 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because Interesting number paradox isn't a policy =). cab 00:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NUMBER. —David Eppstein 03:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being next to the largest known Fermat prime (not Fermat number as the article claims) is not interesting. There is no article on Robert Wadlows neighbour (at least I don't think so!), and twin primes of that size are common. PrimeHunter 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NUMBER. —dima /talk/ 04:40, 28 April 2007 (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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this page.  ''
+<!--Template:Afd top
+Note:  If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]].  When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->
+The result was '''delete'''. [[User:Krimpet|Krimpet]] ([[User talk:Krimpet|talk]]) 15:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 ===[[65539 (number)]]===
+{{ns:0|T}}
-{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}
 :{{la|65539 (number)}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65539 (number)|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 April 26#{{anchorencode:65539 (number)}}|View log]])</noinclude>
 Contested prod.  Per [[WP:NUMBER]], articles on numbers over 1000 are discouraged unless they have three interesting properties, which are also fairly rare. We do not, for example, have articles on every prime; we have a [[list of primes]].
@@ Line 6: / Line 14: @@
 '''Delete''' Four properties are claimed here.
 # is arbitrary; this is a Fermat prime +2; every number is a Fermat prime + ''something''.
-#, the twin prime, really adds little to (1).
+#, the twin prime, really adds little to (1). Between them they amount to one, (maybe 1.5) interesting property.
 # is trivial; given [[Goldbach's conjecture]], it amounts to 65539 has digits which sum to an even number less a hundred trillion; half of all the numbers which are not too long to be page titles.
 # is numerology. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] <small>[[User talk:Pmanderson|PMAnderson]]</small> 17:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * '''Delete''' &mdash; Interesting properties for 5-digit numbers can be listed on [[10000 (number)]]. But these all look rather trivial. &mdash; [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 17:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' Every large number is special in several trivial ways. [[User:Edison|Edison]] 17:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
-*''Delete'' per [[WP:NUMBER]][[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per [[WP:NUMBER]] - not nearly special enough  [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] 17:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' because none of the items is particularly special. [[User:YechielMan|YechielMan]] 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' violates [[WP:NUMBER]], not special enough to deserve an article ''[[User:Hut 8.5|<b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b>]]'' 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''', even if it is [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Over 9000|over 9000]]. =^_^=  Fascinating notes, but too arbitrary.  --[[User:Dennisthe2|'''<span style="background:Orange;color:Black">Dennis The Tiger</span>''']]  ([[User talk:Dennisthe2|Rawr]] and [[Special:Contributions/Dennisthe2|stuff]]) 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' garners a great big "So what". [[User:JuJube|JuJube]] 21:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. It's worth pointing out that we don't have a separate article on [[65536]] (it redirects to [[10000 (number)]]), even though that figure is far more important, especially in the computing field. <span style="border: #AAF solid 4px; background: #11E; padding: 1px; margin-right: .5em;">[[User talk:Crotalus horridus|<span style="color:#AAF;"><b><tt>***&nbsp;Crotalus&nbsp;***</tt></b></span>]]</span> 22:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
+** There ''is'', however, an article on [[65535 (number)]]. &mdash; [[User:RJHall|RJH]] ([[User_talk:RJHall|''talk'']]) 22:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
+***65535 has multiple notable properties (polygon constructible with compass and straightedge, number-theoretic connection to both Mersenne numbers and Fermat numbers, largest unsigned 16-bit number, related limits in many programs). Most computer programmers will instantly recognize it. Per Septentrionalis, 65539's listed properties are much more arbitrary and trivial. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
+**Wouldn't it be better to redirect [[65536]] to [[power of two]]? [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
+* '''Delete''' because [[Interesting number paradox]] isn't a policy =). [[User:CaliforniaAliBaba|cab]] 00:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per [[WP:NUMBER]]. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] 03:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. Being next to the largest known Fermat prime (not Fermat number as the article claims) is not interesting. There is no article on [[Robert Wadlow]]s neighbour (at least I don't think so!), and twin primes of that size are common. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''' per [[WP:NUMBER]]. [[User:DDima|—dima]][[User talk:DDima|'''''/talk/''''']] 04:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>