Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/138 (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. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

138 (number)
This number is not notable because it is notable. Extreme delete. Thue | talk 14:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, the good old interesting number paradox. Delete unless anything more can be said. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 15:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) It's now borderline notable - neutral for now. I suspect enough can be said about 138 to make it worth keeping. sjorford &rarr;&bull;&larr; 22:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Proof that all integers are interesting (and should be kept?):
 * 1) 1 is intersting and notable, OK
 * 2) Assume k is interesting and notable, need to prove that k+1 is interesting and notable.
 * 3) If n is interesting and notable, then n+1 is interesting and notable for being one higher than an interesting and notable number.
 * 4) So k+1 is interesting and notable.
 * 5) By principle of induction all numbers are interesting and notable, but we do not have space for that unfortunately. But then again Wikipedia is not paper; and someone has expanded this from being a silly joke article to a proper article on numbers.
 * 6) Conclusion: This article should be deleted . 138 is a notable number, not merely notable for not being notable, which would really not be very notable, but since this is notable I will notably change my vote to a notable keep. When someone now makes the 139 (number) article, please do not let it be a silly joke however. Sjakkalle 08:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Sjakkalle 08:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * If the only way to show an integer is notable is by using the notable integer paradox, then it doesn't deserve its own article. That's not the case with 138. PrimeFan 22:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * This sounds like an argument for the deletion of high school articles. Denni &#9775; 23:27, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
 * Well not really, there are only a finite number of high schools. Sjakkalle 08:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not paper! We could have a little Java applet called "List of interesting numbers" that keeps scrolling indefinitely higher... or an "interesting number defecating bear..." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If this is redone so its along the same lines as 137, I'll vote to keep. There has to be a cut off somewhere, but 138 seems a bit too arbitrary to me. I assume there is a wikiproject for these integer articles, and that would be the best place to discuss where the consecutive numbers should end and where they should start doing only more significant numbers. -R. fiend 15:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The cutoff is 256. See project page. Anton Mravcek 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Keep and cleanup then. Normally I hate voting "keep and cleanup" unless I intend to do the cleaning, because such votes result in keeping but not cleaning an article. In this case, however, I have faith that the wikiproject participants will take care of it. -R. fiend 21:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and allow for organic growth, this number apparently is worthy of note. --GRider\talk 17:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I like the number articles normally, but there is absolutely nothing here of note. Gamaliel 17:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it is very likely that there actually is something genuinely interesting about the number 138, but... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can articulate what it is prior to expiration of VfD. And I don't mean "138 is the atomic weight of..." or "138 is the route number of the road on which Blue Hills Ski Area is situated." Original article is basically a joke/prank. We've had others, I forget the title but we had a self-instantiating version of Russell's paradox a while back. List of Wikipedia lists that do not include themselves or something. By the way, there is a "Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers" by D. G. Wells, David Wells, ISBN 0140261494, that's very good, but I gave my copy to a friend. Would be a good reference to consult if anyone's got time for a trip to the library. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * P. S. Mathworld says it's an abundant number, but that doesn't do much for me because the definition is awfully obscure and because it says there are 21 such numbers below 100. It is also the number of stellations of the Triakis Tetrahedron, which as I'm sure we all know is a nonreticulated frumuflex of the acquipotentiated foithboinder. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word on that. Anton Mravcek 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Possibly redirect to a page called 100s (number) that summarizes the interesting properties of integers in this range (where individual pages don't already exist). &mdash; RJH
 * Keep. Keep up with the French and the Slovene. Anton Mravcek 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(talk) 20:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep At least as noteworthy as a Pokemon subcharacter. And yes, more can be added. Denni &#9775; 20:35, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
 * Keep. ShutterBugTrekker 21:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, big debate. Actually I don't care much if this is deleted, it was just an attempt at humour in the same spirit the article was written. The extreme delete was a reference to Extreme article deletion. *makes note to link to that page in the future and include more smilies* Thue | talk 23:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Dpbsmith, I'm saddened that a seasoned wikipedian such as yourself should feel the need to vandalize an article, even one up as a VfD. Just because you feel this article in its original form was unworthy does not mean all of us do. While your pseudohumorous remark was appropriate in this discussion, it is not so in an article. Denni &#9775; 23:23, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
 * ????? I haven't edited the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. Apparently that was inserted by Anton Mravcek. Who, for the record, is not me. Whether it was amisunderstanding on his part or a prank I don't know, but if I had seen it I would have reverted. Apologies for having been an indirect agent of damage to an article. Next time I'll insert a smiley. For the record, I've stated above that I think it is very likely that there is something interesting about 138. I just wish people would find the interesting fact before creating an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Dpbsmith, your remark that there are 138 stellations of the triakis tetrahedron sounded right enough. I wasn't so sure about frumuflex or foithboinder, but I figured that if it was in fact a joke it would be taken out quickly enough. Anton Mravcek 19:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * (Cough) It is not considered a best practice to put material whose meaning you do not understand into an article. If you don't understand the meaning, how can you be sure that the material is accurate? However, on my part I will try to avoid making deadpan jokes in future, particularly any involving cromulent sesquipedalianisms. <- joke. Dpbsmith
 * I was wrong to do that. I apologize. Anton Mravcek 21:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Twasn't Dpb but another user who took his attempts at humor a bit too seriously. I've seen people take discussion from a VfD and insert it into an article before, but it's generally not a good idea. I think Dpb's humor was a bit too esoteric, and i guess that has its hazards. -R. fiend 01:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * P. S. The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Number is 100% real and my suggestion of it as a resource was sincere. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it is noteworthy of keeping. I mean it might not be as good as some other numbers, but compared to some articles, this is more noteworthy and should be kept. WB 01:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, there's enough to keep now. DS 17:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This number appears to be even more interesting than either 38 or 1138. Robert Happelberg 20:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * delete - any number you pick out of a hat has an infinite number of "interesting" properties. Doesn't make it notable in any way however. Fawcett5 22:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If that hat has only numbers between 1 and 1024, then you're absolutely right, that number will have "an infinite number of "interesting" properties." Let's say the hat has numbers between 1 and 4294967296. The probability of picking a number with interesting (i.e., non-obvious) properties decreases dramatically. You can probably name lots of interesting properties for say, 123. But how about 123356779? 123 deserves its own article. 123356779 most likely doesn't. PrimeFan 22:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - David Gerard 23:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Either keep and expand series to 150 before stopping permanantely, or delete this and all previous and put into compilation by 100 (for example numbers, 101-200). Hedley 03:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm glad Dbpsmith cannot be implicated in inserting patent nonsense into this article. I would also note that this series of articles extends to 256. Numbers past that must have a darn good reason for an individual article. Denni &#9775; 21:16, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
 * Keep, since numbers have infinite numbers of interesting properties, we can should include more than 138 of them. Kappa 10:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Within project range, interesting enough number. PrimeFan 22:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep You're going to delete a number? WHAT? ParkingStones
 * Keep why not? And stop being so ridiculous with these deletions! joan53
 * The nomination was not ridiculous; look at the first version where the only notability was "138 is the smallest number not having a separate article in Wikipedia". Only after replacement of the joke article with the proper article, did this become keepworthy. Sjakkalle 08:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this number has several interesting properties. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 01:24, Mar 21, 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.