Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12407 (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 Redirect to Interesting number paradox. 28bytes (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

12407 (number)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Declined A7, with rationale
 * This number is not notable - that it was used on a TV show once is really rather a poor excuse. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Quite so. Although see Interesting number paradox; I bet QI pulled this "fact" off Wikipedia. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Some real world coverage of this number should meet the WP:GNG.  Lugnuts  (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Turn it into a redirect. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  14:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect it to what exactly?  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * keep it is just way too meta to delete it for unnotability. --IIVeaa (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – single and unreliable source. – Smyth\talk 18:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At most, redirect to Interesting number paradox - there is just not enough notability for a whole article. 109.154.94.244 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is up to those asserting notability to find multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of this integer. Not every number is notable, or I could create an infinite number of articles. Found no coverage of it at Google books search as anything other than one more integer used in the humdrum counting or numbering of things. The passing reference in a comedy show "Inland revenue" falls far below the threshold of establishing notability. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * redirect as above. No reliable sources that don't involve OR, and even they fall far short of GNG requirements.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 22:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Interesting number paradox where it's already mentioned, or delete. This is just one of several published examples of "Smallest uninteresting number", based on being the smallest number not appearing in a particular place at the time of publication. 12407 is based on currently not being among the listed terms in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS). Other numbers had this distinction in the past and others probably will in the future. And as their name says, OEIS is for sequences and not individual integers. Lots of their sequences contain 12407 when more terms of the sequence are shown than the usual around three lines. For example, 12407 = 19×653 is a semiprime so it's eventually in oeis:A001358. Clicking "Table of n, a(n) for n = 1..10000" shows it as term 3235. There are also OEIS sequences for things like odd numbers (A005408), composite numbers (A002808), and all natural numbers (A000027). All of these include 12407 in a linked table. 12407 (number) only mentions 12407 Riccardi, one of more than 100,000 sequentially numbered minor planets, and a zip code for an unimportant town of 784 people. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Be careful, or someone will start arguing that there are three interesting facts about 12407 as well as being uninteresting. Dingo1729 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Interesting number paradox. Suraj  T  03:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The claim about this number on Interesting number paradox isn't referenced to a reliable source, so I don't see much point in a redirect. Even assuming the claim about the OEIS is true, because numbers are regularly added to the OEIS 12407's status is likely to to change (the non-reliable source I mentioned claims that 2 other numbers have held this position in the last 3 years), so it's not something to keep for the ages. Why would anybody search for 12407 on Wikipedia anyway? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Interesting number paradox. And by the way, A7 is only applicable to people, groups, animals, or websites that don't assert importance (not notability). The article passed both parts. Sceptre (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Interesting number paradox. I have just watched the QI episode; the fact /is/ quite interesting but I can see why it's not enough to keep a place of it own doktorb wordsdeeds 22:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if we ignore the untruth of the main claim in the article (lots of sequences would contain this number if only they weren't arbitrarily cut off earlier, and -12407 does appear in A160077) we usually need three interesting mathematical properties to keep a number article. "Not being listed in a database due to an arbitrary cutoff" is not an interesting mathematical property and it's only one. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. All integers are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia.  This must be true, as if not, there would be a lowest unnoteworthy number, which by this fact would become noteworthy, thus leading to a logical paradox. &mdash;  H y p e r d e a t h ( Talk ) 23:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note from nominator: This would appear to fail WP:NUMBER; I encourage all posters to look at this specific notability guideline. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect 12,407 does not meet the three criteria presented at WP:NUMBER.  HurricaneFan 25  19:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete You people are seriously arguing that some random number is deserving of an article? Jtrainor (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2011 (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.