Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3011 (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   delete.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 01:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

3011 (number)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is absolutely nothing special or noteworthy about this number. It does not come within a million miles of satisfying any of the notability guidelines, including the general notability guideline and Notability (numbers). (Note: PROD was removed by an anonymous (IP) editor, who gave no reason at all.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, no sign of this meeting the number notability criteria. I previously proposed merging this to 3000_(number), but I no longer see anything worth merging. Hairhorn (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Notability (numbers). I've saved some unlikely-looking number articles in the past by finding enough interesting properties about them, but of the 220 hits for 3011 in OEIS, I didn't find a single one that both seemed to me to be an interesting property (like being a prime number) and that had 3011 early enough in the sequence to be a notable example of one of its numbers. The closest was A114351 (primes of the form 3x^3+x+1) which does have 3011 early in the sequence but is not notable enough to have a name or a Wikipedia article. I agree with Hairhorn that it isn't even good enough for a redirect to 3000 (number). —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It's just a number. There are an infinite number of similar numbers. This kind of article encourages articles like "1625461547152476215376152873652138765128367598790879879087098709870983 is the natural number following 1625461547152476215376152873652138765128367598790879879087098709870982 and preceding 1625461547152476215376152873652138765128367598790879879087098709870984," which are in no way encyclopedic.  Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – found nothing of interest, apart from a Miss Santa set. Regards, RJH (talk) 04:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - if there were anything interesting about it, it could redirect to 3000 (number), but I don't see anything even worth that, unless we wanted to have every whole number between 3000 and 3999 without their own articles as redirects... but why do that? Lady  of  Shalott  04:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - as trivia. (An aside: I'm not a math guy, but there would logically be an infinite number of prime numbers, would there not?) Carrite (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, there are infinite prime numbers (see Euclid's theorem), which further justifies the non-notability of 3011. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Snow Delete. There's nothing particularly notable about this number. Fails WP:GNG and WP:Notability (numbers). The overwhelming consensus is that it should be deleted, and I think the snowball clause should take effect here. Chris the Paleontologist  (talk • contribs) 18:32, 16 January 2012 (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.