Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/138 (number)
This number is not notable because it is notable. Extreme delete. Thue | talk 14:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, the good old interesting number paradox. Delete unless anything more can be said. sjorford →•← 15:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Proof that all integers are interesting (and should be kept?):
- 1 is intersting and notable, OK
- Assume k is interesting and notable, need to prove that k+1 is interesting and notable.
- If n is interesting and notable, then n+1 is interesting and notable for being one higher than an interesting and notable number.
- So k+1 is interesting and notable.
- By principle of induction all numbers are interesting and notable, but we do not have space for that unfortunately.
- Conclusion: This article should be deleted. Sjakkalle 08:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If this is redone so its along the same lines as 137, I'll vote to keep. There has to be a cut off somewhere, but 138 seems a bit too arbitrary to me. I assume there is a wikiproject for these integer articles, and that would be the best place to discuss where the consecutive numbers should end and where they should start doing only more significant numbers. -R. fiend 15:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and allow for organic growth, this number apparently is worthy of note. --GRider\talk 17:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I like the number articles normally, but there is absolutely nothing here of note. Gamaliel 17:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I think it is very likely that there actually is something genuinely interesting about the number 138, but... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can articulate what it is prior to expiration of VfD. And I don't mean "138 is the atomic weight of..." or "138 is the route number of the road on which Blue Hills Ski Area is situated." Original article is basically a joke/prank. We've had others, I forget the title but we had a self-instantiating version of Russell's paradox a while back. List of Wikipedia lists that do not include themselves or something. By the way, there is a "Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers" by D. G. Wells, David Wells, ISBN 0140261494, that's very good, but I gave my copy to a friend. Would be a good reference to consult if anyone's got time for a trip to the library. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- P. S. Mathworld says it's an abundant number, but that doesn't do much for me because the definition is awfully obscure and because it says there are 21 such numbers below 100. It is also the number of stellations of the Triakis Tetrahedron, which as I'm sure we all know is a nonreticulated frumuflex of the acquipotentiated foithboinder. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Possibly redirect to a page called 100s (number) that summarizes the interesting properties of integers in this range (where individual pages don't already exist). — RJH