- 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. Kurykh ( talk) 01:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
9814072356 (number)
- 9814072356 (number) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article survived nomination about 12 years ago, but I think it's time to take another look. The only real notable (and that's still being fairly generous) property of this number is that it's the largest base-10 pandigital perfect square, a fact that's already noted at the pandigital number article. Everything else listed is either very closely related to that fact, or pure trivia for bootstrapping notability. At WP:WikiProject Numbers, it seems that more is required for creation of a number article. Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- The previous discussion:
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9814072356.--
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fwiw the closing administrator in 2005 in that case was literally 'counting votes' in a way that we wouldn't see in an Afd close today -- and coincidentally was indef banned not too long after. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. To pass WP:NUMBER we need "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties". This number has only one property (of dubious mathematical interest since it is base-dependent), expressed in different but related ways in the article: the fact that it is the largest square with all digits distinct. That's not enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Unsure. WP:NUMBER lists three criteria but it's unclear how many of them a number needs to meet to be notable. 9814072356 seems to fail tests 1. (three properties) and 2. (cultural significance) but pass 3. (mentioned in literature - assuming the article's References are valid). If the pass mark is 1/3 then it's a keep; if 2/3 then it's probably a delete. I don't think the pass mark can be 3/3, as WP quite correctly has several articles about mathematically important integers with no cultural meaning. Certes ( talk) 23:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This number is no more notable than any other ten-digit number. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep on the pure fact that there is now social history involved with this number... on wikipedia. It has now become (slightly) culturally significant. Also... how is this number NOT kind of interesting? 660099 ^ 2.. AND it uses every number from 0-9 only once? AND there's actual debate spanning multiple years about whether or not it should be kept? That made it interesting enough for me to learn about this specific number. Just my opinion, delete it if you must ;)
Popcrate (
talk) 12:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- By that logic, any article that survives a deletion nomination once and continues to have intermittent comments made about it becomes ineligible for ever being deleted in the future. I don't think it works like that. Moreover, there are 86 other pandigital perfect squares; this one just happens to be the largest. Should we have an article for every one of them? -- Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 14:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- That wasn't logic, I just found the number itself to be interesting =). Probably because: base 10 specifically, the 66099^2, and the use of number each time (If it weren't base 10, it probably wouldn't be as interesting). I believe I reached the page by clicking a wikilink from the "Mathematics Portal" in the "DID YOU KNOW..." section. <-- This sort of thing has value. See Special:WhatLinksHere/9814072356_(number) and Portal:Mathematics/Did_you_know/69. Realistically... I say just redirect/merge it to Pandigital_number. --- Popcrate ( talk) 01:09, 8 May 2017 (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. Kurykh ( talk) 01:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
9814072356 (number)
- 9814072356 (number) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article survived nomination about 12 years ago, but I think it's time to take another look. The only real notable (and that's still being fairly generous) property of this number is that it's the largest base-10 pandigital perfect square, a fact that's already noted at the pandigital number article. Everything else listed is either very closely related to that fact, or pure trivia for bootstrapping notability. At WP:WikiProject Numbers, it seems that more is required for creation of a number article. Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 17:08, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- The previous discussion:
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/9814072356.--
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fwiw the closing administrator in 2005 in that case was literally 'counting votes' in a way that we wouldn't see in an Afd close today -- and coincidentally was indef banned not too long after. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. To pass WP:NUMBER we need "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties". This number has only one property (of dubious mathematical interest since it is base-dependent), expressed in different but related ways in the article: the fact that it is the largest square with all digits distinct. That's not enough. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Unsure. WP:NUMBER lists three criteria but it's unclear how many of them a number needs to meet to be notable. 9814072356 seems to fail tests 1. (three properties) and 2. (cultural significance) but pass 3. (mentioned in literature - assuming the article's References are valid). If the pass mark is 1/3 then it's a keep; if 2/3 then it's probably a delete. I don't think the pass mark can be 3/3, as WP quite correctly has several articles about mathematically important integers with no cultural meaning. Certes ( talk) 23:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. This number is no more notable than any other ten-digit number. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep on the pure fact that there is now social history involved with this number... on wikipedia. It has now become (slightly) culturally significant. Also... how is this number NOT kind of interesting? 660099 ^ 2.. AND it uses every number from 0-9 only once? AND there's actual debate spanning multiple years about whether or not it should be kept? That made it interesting enough for me to learn about this specific number. Just my opinion, delete it if you must ;)
Popcrate (
talk) 12:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- By that logic, any article that survives a deletion nomination once and continues to have intermittent comments made about it becomes ineligible for ever being deleted in the future. I don't think it works like that. Moreover, there are 86 other pandigital perfect squares; this one just happens to be the largest. Should we have an article for every one of them? -- Deacon Vorbis ( talk) 14:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- That wasn't logic, I just found the number itself to be interesting =). Probably because: base 10 specifically, the 66099^2, and the use of number each time (If it weren't base 10, it probably wouldn't be as interesting). I believe I reached the page by clicking a wikilink from the "Mathematics Portal" in the "DID YOU KNOW..." section. <-- This sort of thing has value. See Special:WhatLinksHere/9814072356_(number) and Portal:Mathematics/Did_you_know/69. Realistically... I say just redirect/merge it to Pandigital_number. --- Popcrate ( talk) 01:09, 8 May 2017 (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.