Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + · · ·


 * 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 keep. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 16:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + · · ·

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable geometric series. Not likely to be typed in (why not 2,3, or 5 terms, rather than 4?) db-nn(!) and prod added and removed previously. If the reference were confirmed, it might be merged into geometric series, but the reference doesn't have a book title. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The article needs improvement, but its subject is the original infinite series. Bad titles are not a deletion criterion for articles; anyway, a virtual synonym would be Quadrature of the parabola, which has piles of further references on Google/Books/Scholar. The unique history of the series, and its unique visual representations, will ultimately provide enough material for a separate article. Melchoir 18:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep "it was used by Archimedes circa 250-200 BC.[1]" and referenced, seems to indicate notability. I removed the speedy deletetion tag because there was an assertion of notability. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    On Belay!  20:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with infinite series. The article is too short to stand on its own. And nobody is going to type the article's title to find it. -Amatulic 20:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This series is already mentioned in the Archimedes article. Apart from the Archimedes connection, it's a simple convergent geometric series - it doesn't merit a separate article. Gandalf61 22:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Will be an interesting find in special:random. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. One sentence, a value, and 5 references/notes?  I still say it's not notable, but, even if it is, it's a substub with notes, and should be combined with the other geometric series.  (And whose idea was the spaced centered dots.  Should be the unicode character for a centered ellipsis, at best.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The dots were my idea. I considered the unicode character but rejected it because its spacing is wrong; Jitse Niesen independently arrived at the same idea at Talk:1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + · · ·. Melchoir 23:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with infinite series per Amatulic. --Bduke 23:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to anything more elegant. David Spart 23:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge/Delete - I know where this comes from; this series was summed by Archimedes with respect to approximating values. However, that's pretty much its only claim to fame - it's even debatable to call it the "first" infinite series.  I think it's fine as a note in "Archimedes" and "infinite series".  --Haemo 02:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Impossible to merge and delete. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm ... can CanadianCaesar explain why it is impossible to merge/delete this article ? Mergers and deletions are done very frequently. Gandalf61 10:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They're not supposed to. You redirect the merged article, deleting it amounts to copyright infringement. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * CanadianCaesar, a "merge/delete" vote means merge or delete. There is nothing "impossible" about that. Gandalf61 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are detailed instructions available for closing admins at RfD about how to delete redirects that have edit history. The closing admin will move the old article to a subpage of the talk page of the destination article, preserving edit history, and then delete the now-trivial redirect. CMummert · talk 02:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why would anyone seriously want to delete this?  Perfectly fine article topic, valid stub. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep at this point in time. THe reason for four terms (as opposed to five or three) is to keep it consistent with articles like 1/2 − 1/4 + 1/8 − 1/16 + · · ·. However, later on we might need to merge this if not enough content is provided and articles like the one above are merged as well.Bless sins 16:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with infinite series, too short to stand alone, but significant enough for inclusion. - PoliticalJunkie 19:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and comment I am the creator of this author article, and I find it unfortunate I wasn't notified of this deletion. In any case, all of my arguments for keeping the article can be found on the talk page -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. You were notified of the speedy tag.  That should be sufficient notification that some editors think that the article doesn't belong on Wikipedia.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The speedy seemed to be resolved. And it wasn't "some" editors, it was one editor, who has changed his mind after I explained to him my reasons for the article.-- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  ♥  ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  18:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with Series (mathematics). &mdash; RJH (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article can and should be improved, but that's not a reason to delete it. Let's not kill efforts to contribute before they even take of. -- Schneelocke 22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * merge to a general article on infinite series sounds like a great idea, if all other articles with infinite series names can be merged there too. Otherwise I'd say keep per Schneelocke's comment above - as for the nn tag, it seems it was attached to the article the moment the article was first created. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 00:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: This series is a specific example of a geometric progression, so that would be the most appropriate place to merge it to. But there is practically no content to merge ! Apart from the Archimedes connection (which is already mentioned in our Archimedes article) this is a totally unremarkable geometric series. Gandalf61 10:04, 22 March 2007 (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.