Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/134 (number)

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 15:10, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

134 (number)
No practical use. Joke entry. Pufferfish101 23:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Numbers are inherently notable. --Goobergunch|? 01:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It would be foolish to remove 134 without removing the whole series. Not a joke. ---rrreese|? 28 Jan 2005
 * keep. There's a pretty active project involving numbers here.  Joyous 02:58, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.-gadfium 03:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've been busting =my= ass on this series. Denni &#9775; 03:14, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
 * Your hard work is appreciated. PrimeFan 20:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Why people should read the article in question before commenting on it... Yes, it =is= a joke parody, but it's funny, and this article will soon have reeal information in it soon anyway, so let's leave it to amuse those travelling this particular corridor. Denni &#9775; 00:10, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * Keep. The practical usefulness of many these articles is somewhat questionable, but they do serve a purpose and are, in their own esoteric way, informative. -R. fiend 06:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The practical usefulness of most Wikipedia articles is in question, but we keep 'em because they're cute and kinda fun. Denni &#9775; 00:05, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)
 * Keep. I CSD'ed the page originaly. Well, v0 was definitely a jokish entry. It is still now jokish. But it looks a number article has the right to exist regardless of content. I have seen better number articles though. Like thaught provoking, or curiosity stimulant... I genuinely find this one, poor. Gtabary 13:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't establish notability.  This is a slippery slope, are we going to have to create articles for every number?  Maybe this could be merged into List of integers .  Sarcasm aside, Keep.  --Plutor 17:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth. GRider\talk 18:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This number is more interesting than I thought it was when I added an entry in the Slovene Wikipedia a couple of days ago. Anton Mravcek 23:16, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, nothing wrong with keeping this article. Megan1967 02:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. &mdash; Brim 10:17, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, Wikipedia definitely needs one article per number.  Get to work, boys, a million Wikipedia articles is no problem.  Why stop at a million?  And lets not discriminate against negative numbers and real numbers!   Delete (Good grief!) --BM 17:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, BM has a point there. But looks like WP on some aspects is over-inclusive. When you add all the kids who want to do a test + the vanity of droping an article on the WP, well.. indeed a million won't be enough. I suggest an article per digit of the pi number. We are sure there will be enough there. Gtabary 18:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Please see the project page and project talk page to add to the discussion of what numbers are notable enough for Wikipedia to have articles on them. For example, the fifth Fermat prime might deserve its own article, the next prime number after it probably doesn't. PrimeFan 20:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Numbers are important to human civilization. Riffsyphon1024 20:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Don't call any number non-notable! --Idont Havaname 01:39, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * "Don't call any number non-notable!" Especially if you don't want anyone to go looking for things to contradict you with! (e.g., Hardy and Ramanujan on 1729). PrimeFan 20:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I just wish that the person who started this article had taken a look at WikiProject Numbers first. Thus, he might have then taken a look at 130 (number) and jotted his observations of the number there. If the section on 134 at 130 grew long enough, then someone could've made the call that the number deserved its own article. This way, people have somewhere to jot down in a common place interesting facts about a number while avoiding the careless creation of number stubs and easing the anxiety of people who wonder if others don't know that numbers are infinite. PrimeFan 20:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, and may God have mercy on the souls of whoever started this project. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:43, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Careful, Jmabel. I've recently witnessed biased VfD admins gaming the vote count by counting "weak" votes as half votes in order to delete an article.  Please bare this in mind. GRider\talk 18:55, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Then I hope you've mentioned this to the administrator(s) in question when you've seen it happen, rather than just making this vague accusatory statement about "gaming the system." Joyous 21:58, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize, Joyous, that was a bit vague. I have posted my account of this occurence on Votes for undeletion today with the specifics.  GRider\talk 22:02, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate the clarification.  Joyous 22:09, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * The first fifty or so integers are fairly well covered. Certainly, the first ten integers, plus 12, are associated with a goodly amount of human activity. Past that, there is still significant relevance in the areas of mathematics and the sciences. I'm not sure, Jmabel, where that deep sigh is coming from, since (I assume) you're not doing any legwork on this one. It's also worth remembering that while the integers may progress to infinity, there is not a great deal of human relevance to record after the first few hundred, though some powers of two, some prime numbers, and some dates may be of note. As they say, if you build it, they will come, and who's to say that this is a quixotic endeavor? Denni &#9775; 03:23, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)
 * Delete, cute, but useless. Edeans 08:45, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Natural numbers are always notable. jni 08:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep A worthy series. ÅrÐ£nT &dagger; &isin;  09:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.