- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 198 (number) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not pass WP:NNUM: Per discussion on the article's talk with User:Certes, there are not "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer": there are plenty of notable properties that it has, like being an even number or being a composite number, but because those properties hold for such a large proportion of the integers, it is not interesting that 198 has those properties, and the documentation that 198 has those properties (in passing, among many other numbers with those properties) does not constitute the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. I searched for but failed to find Wikipedia-notable properties, or properties labeled as "nice" in OEIS, for which it is among the first five or so examples. If judged non-notable, this would appear to be the smallest non-notable natural number but per WP:SELF that is also not a reason for notability. My earlier PROD was removed by User:Crouch, Swale but without any attempt to provide better content for the article or to justify notability (the removal edit summary cited WP:OTHERLANGS but explicitly noted that was not a justification for notability). So it seems that Crouch, Swale has dragged us into another week of pointless bureaucracy to get rid of a pointless article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think an article with 42 IW links should at least be discussed, I offer no opinion on if notable but I think its controversial enough to need a discussion. Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling#Common mistakes with prod, and what to do about them item 6 seems to apply. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete, but not speedily. Per Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Integers, the number lacks three interesting properties, though it is mentioned in What's Special About This Number? as 198 = 11 + 99 + 88. This discussion is worth having: this is a borderline case, and it's unprecedented for an integer below 260 not to have its own article. There is also no range article in which to keep any content worth saving, in the way that 262 (number) redirects to 260 (number)#262. If the title is to become a redlink, we should also check that no templates are going to break. The current assumption is that all x (number) titles in this range either have articles or redirect to a range article. Certes ( talk) 20:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It does have properties that one could argue are interesting, like being the number in between a pair of twin primes, but on any such list it's so far down that it's not going to be an example of a number with such a property that would be discussed. Wiki-notability isn't synonymous with "noteworthiness" or "having a nonzero amount of facts that could be said about it"; part of the question is whether the topic is best presented by a stand-alone article. I can't make that case here. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- All of the things that you have been repeatedly removing are also the only things propping up the likes of
147 (number),
148 (number), and
174 (number); namely highways, asteroids, elements, ships, regiments, bus routes, sonnets, psalms, and whatnot. We are actually quite weak when it comes to a strict standard of only the mathematical properties counting.
Uncle G (
talk)
22:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- 148, at least, looks salvageable. I haven't done the searches necessarily to decide whether I think 147 and 174 can be notable, although I agree that the articles don't make a case for it. I don't actually think that only mathematical properties should count; 666 is notable for non-mathematical reasons, for instance. But I don't think that merely having the number in titles of other articles is worth much; at best, that can go into a "See also" entry with the {{
In title}} template. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Update: I edited 147 (number) and 148 (number) to conform more closely to what I think an article like this should look like, in both cases leaving in two non-mathematical reasons why they are notable (they also have enough on the mathematical side). — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- 148, at least, looks salvageable. I haven't done the searches necessarily to decide whether I think 147 and 174 can be notable, although I agree that the articles don't make a case for it. I don't actually think that only mathematical properties should count; 666 is notable for non-mathematical reasons, for instance. But I don't think that merely having the number in titles of other articles is worth much; at best, that can go into a "See also" entry with the {{
In title}} template. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NNUM. Lkb335 ( talk) 16:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I merged it to 190 (number), if not an article it can be the same as 262 (number) and others. The only reason the range wasn't in the article was that they all had separate articles. Of the integers 1 to 1000, 315 are in Category:Integers, the other 685 are all at least redirects to a multiple of 10 or 100 and there is no reason to make this an exception. A865 ( talk) 12:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 198 (number) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not pass WP:NNUM: Per discussion on the article's talk with User:Certes, there are not "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer": there are plenty of notable properties that it has, like being an even number or being a composite number, but because those properties hold for such a large proportion of the integers, it is not interesting that 198 has those properties, and the documentation that 198 has those properties (in passing, among many other numbers with those properties) does not constitute the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG. I searched for but failed to find Wikipedia-notable properties, or properties labeled as "nice" in OEIS, for which it is among the first five or so examples. If judged non-notable, this would appear to be the smallest non-notable natural number but per WP:SELF that is also not a reason for notability. My earlier PROD was removed by User:Crouch, Swale but without any attempt to provide better content for the article or to justify notability (the removal edit summary cited WP:OTHERLANGS but explicitly noted that was not a justification for notability). So it seems that Crouch, Swale has dragged us into another week of pointless bureaucracy to get rid of a pointless article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think an article with 42 IW links should at least be discussed, I offer no opinion on if notable but I think its controversial enough to need a discussion. Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed deletion patrolling#Common mistakes with prod, and what to do about them item 6 seems to apply. Crouch, Swale ( talk) 19:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Weak delete, but not speedily. Per Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Integers, the number lacks three interesting properties, though it is mentioned in What's Special About This Number? as 198 = 11 + 99 + 88. This discussion is worth having: this is a borderline case, and it's unprecedented for an integer below 260 not to have its own article. There is also no range article in which to keep any content worth saving, in the way that 262 (number) redirects to 260 (number)#262. If the title is to become a redlink, we should also check that no templates are going to break. The current assumption is that all x (number) titles in this range either have articles or redirect to a range article. Certes ( talk) 20:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete It does have properties that one could argue are interesting, like being the number in between a pair of twin primes, but on any such list it's so far down that it's not going to be an example of a number with such a property that would be discussed. Wiki-notability isn't synonymous with "noteworthiness" or "having a nonzero amount of facts that could be said about it"; part of the question is whether the topic is best presented by a stand-alone article. I can't make that case here. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:54, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- All of the things that you have been repeatedly removing are also the only things propping up the likes of
147 (number),
148 (number), and
174 (number); namely highways, asteroids, elements, ships, regiments, bus routes, sonnets, psalms, and whatnot. We are actually quite weak when it comes to a strict standard of only the mathematical properties counting.
Uncle G (
talk)
22:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- 148, at least, looks salvageable. I haven't done the searches necessarily to decide whether I think 147 and 174 can be notable, although I agree that the articles don't make a case for it. I don't actually think that only mathematical properties should count; 666 is notable for non-mathematical reasons, for instance. But I don't think that merely having the number in titles of other articles is worth much; at best, that can go into a "See also" entry with the {{
In title}} template. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Update: I edited 147 (number) and 148 (number) to conform more closely to what I think an article like this should look like, in both cases leaving in two non-mathematical reasons why they are notable (they also have enough on the mathematical side). — David Eppstein ( talk) 06:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- 148, at least, looks salvageable. I haven't done the searches necessarily to decide whether I think 147 and 174 can be notable, although I agree that the articles don't make a case for it. I don't actually think that only mathematical properties should count; 666 is notable for non-mathematical reasons, for instance. But I don't think that merely having the number in titles of other articles is worth much; at best, that can go into a "See also" entry with the {{
In title}} template. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
23:11, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NNUM. Lkb335 ( talk) 16:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I merged it to 190 (number), if not an article it can be the same as 262 (number) and others. The only reason the range wasn't in the article was that they all had separate articles. Of the integers 1 to 1000, 315 are in Category:Integers, the other 685 are all at least redirects to a multiple of 10 or 100 and there is no reason to make this an exception. A865 ( talk) 12:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- 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.