Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-2 (number)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

-2 (number)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

At least based on the content of this article, doesn't seem to meet the criteria of WP:Notability (numbers). Previous PROD; a PROD2 contributor wrote "Content is so obvious that it is not noteworthy." —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete based on current content. It may be possible to rewrite this article to satisfy Notability (numbers), in which case I might change my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No information given that we didn't already know.Borock (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I just can't see that -2 is a notable number. 2 is, -1 is, but not -2. pablo hablo. 14:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. However, if the article is deleted, of all the integers not possessing a Wikipedia article, -2 would have the smallest absolute value. Would this make it notable? Thincat (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose someone had to throw in that old paradox! —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I would think that all integers [-10,-2] should have articles, but the state this article is in, it's not really worth keeping. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously, that would be an infinite number of articles. While I agree that every positive integer could, potentially, have an article, we don't have a page for "2π"; "-2" is simply 2 x -1.  I say keep this up for negative two years.  In other words, bring it back in September 2011.  Mandsford (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how integers in [-10,-2] is an infinite range, perhaps someone has invented new maths I am unaware of. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * More like I misunderstood. I thought you meant "all integers", and I didn't pick up that you were referring to the ones ranging from -10 to -2 (or put another way, -10, -9, -8, -7, -6 etc.)  I agree that some of those may be worth their own article; -8 is (-2)³ for instance, and -7 is by definition an unlucky number because it negates all of the good luck from the number 7, and -5 is a penalty in football.  However, I think that -6 is non-notable in the extreme and I will fight any attempt to make an article about it, I am not kidding, -6 does not merit its own page under any circumstances, it is only trying to sneak in to the range [-8, -5].  Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * -7 is just an upstart and a chancer, claiming inherited notability from 7. No more integercruft! pablo hablo. 12:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that there is enough interesting facts about this number to make it notable, just because the article as it is now does a bad job at supporting this doesn't mean we should delete it. Instead the article just needs more supported content.  J kasd  05:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone comes up with some interest facts, can't that person create the article then? —Largo Plazo (talk) 10:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, if someone has something interesting to say about a number, create an article about it then rather than reserving a place for it. Wikipedia is not like the elementary school "number line" that gets posted at the top of the wall.  As an aside, I'm reminded of the Interesting number paradox, which says that there is no such thing as an uninteresting number; because if you could make a group of numbers that were not interesting in anyway, that quality in itself would be interesting.  Mandsford (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2009 (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.