Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1300 (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 1000 (number). v/r - TP 22:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

1300 (number)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Pointless; there are criteria for this sort of entry and this one fails on all counts. Declined prod. Hairhorn (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete; pointless article. Naveenswiki (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 1000 (number), where 1300 is mentioned. --Lambiam 21:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect as per Lambian. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - now meets WP:NUMBER benchmark (just). Gandalf61 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added some stuff that is specific to this number. It is still a 'stub', but similar number stubs are allowed to exist. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While the property that the number can be written as $Σ _{i < 5} i^{5}$ is interesting, it still falls short of the criterion for the notability of specific individual numbers. --Lambiam 12:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, Lambiam, I wasn't aware of that guideline (edit: apparently I missed Hairhorn's link above...). It doesn't seem to really clarify the minimum requirements with regard to specific numbers, though. Personally, I would say that the article needs one more interesting fact. But it was just created. Surely such an additional fact exists, and someone, perhaps you, will add it to the page. Greenodd (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, most numbers are not notable. (Otherwise, it would just signify we haven't set the bar high enough yet.) So there is no reason to assume that 1300 must "surely" meet the notability requirement of enjoying at least three interesting properties. See WP:1729 for a quantitative approach to determining "interestingness". --Lambiam 17:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, delete, delete. Absolutely no content of any value at all. As for the notion of redirecting to another article where this number is mentioned, that would make sense if the other article gave significant information about this number, but it doesn't. As for the argument that this argument should be kept because other articles no better exist, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. It is ridiculous that we have such pointless and trivial articles. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, you are linking to an essay. Interesting, but not guidance. I find that comparing the article to a similar one, like 999 (number), gives an indication of what the larger community (as opposed to this small and random gathering) thinks. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've just added a third fact, which I think suffices to establish notability. Greenodd (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added three more facts and wikified the page. Greenodd (talk) 16:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect. The non-mathematical facts all look like WP:TRIVIA to me, and of the mathematical facts the only one that's actually of any significance is the sum of fifth powers one — it would be absurd to say "1300 is notable because it's an even number", and it's almost as absurd to say that it's notable for being composite, abundant, or Harshad, as in all three cases there are very many smaller numbers with the same properties. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect per the above. Clearly as valid search term. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC) Switching to Keep. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...OK, it's thin. Almost paper-thin. But there's now enough there to justify Keeping the article. Good work, that. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment More facts added. As I see it, the article now satisfies all three criteria for notability of specific individual numbers. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NUMBER, if only just, per Greenodd. -- 202.124.73.202 (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:TRIVIA. Is anyone seriously claiming in-depth coverage of the topic?? Dingo1729 (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need to finish Wikipedia today. What is claimed is notability. Cheers, Greenodd (talk) 23:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect a perfectly valid thing that someone would search, but we don't need an article for every number.  HurricaneFan 25  15:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Added 4 additional facts. Greenodd (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The deepest canyon in Europe, the Tara River Canyon in Montenegro, is 1300 meters deep." Seriously? This is just trivia. Hairhorn (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment For some reason Greenodd seems determined to keep this article at all costs, and has added strings of pointless trivia to the article, apparently on the principal that loads of trivia constitutes notability. For example, we have "In Australia, a 1300 number is a telephone number that applies local rates". Presumably one could find equally significant information from somewhere in the world about practically any number below about a million or so. In an apparent attempt to make it seem that the number has significant mathematical properties, rather than just real world trivia, we have "1300! is a factorial number (last zero dropped) with decimal value 1x4! + 3x3! = 42" which is an almost unbelievably forced attempt to find something to say about the number. It simply tells us that in an obscure notational system (which very few mathematicians have heard of, let alone anyone else) the sequence of figures "13000" (not even 1300) represents the number 42. So what? In the same obscure number system "20110" represents the number 51, "43010" represents the number 115, and so on. The fact that "13000" represents 42 is not remotely significant, unless there is some special reason that I have missed. Even if the article were about the number 13000, that would be a totally pointless fact, and it is made even more irrelevant by the need to use "13000" rather than "1300" because "1300" doesn't exist in that numbering system: that is an indication of how desperate Greenodd is to find things to say about the number to try to make it look notable. Frankly, if the best that can be achieved by someone who has put such a huge amount of effort into trying to show notability is such pointless irrelevance as that, together with trivia like the Australian telephone number thing, then that persuades me even more strongly than before that the number is not notable: if it were then Greenodd would have found genuinely significant facts about it, and would not have to resort to such pointless trivia. I could go through all the other trivial statements made in the article too, but those two examples illustrate the basic point. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, mr. Administrator. You and your friend mr. Bob Re-born, while never doing anything constructive yourselves, have managed to chase off a well-meaning fellow user with your bullying and thrashing. I came here to help out, not to wage war. You have made that impossible.
 * Now I will move to a competing project and continue my work there, leaving these Wikipedia articles in their current sorry state. Greenodd (talk) 10:51, 30 October 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.