Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/8191 (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 Mersenne prime. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 15:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

8191 (number)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable number. Per WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." -- Non-Dropframe   talk   15:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —  San ska ri  Hangout 16:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Copied from page on Mersenne primes. OmegaBuddy13find me here P.S We should maybe make it a redirect until someone can actually take the time to write an article on a number that has nothing special about it, other than the fact that it's '''just another Mp, anyways. OmegaBuddy13find me here That redirect wouldn't be the most reasonable thing to do, and it simply supports the page being its own thing. As I said earlier, I do still agree that it should be redirected. OmegaBuddy13find me here 20:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mersenne prime. The correct criterion is not CRYSTAL (this is not a likely future discovery but rather something discovered in the 15th century), but Notability (numbers): we need "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties" (or clear cultural significance). Although 8191 is listed in several important sequences in OEIS, they all relate closely to the same fact, that it is one less than a power of two, so they are not unrelated. But as a Mersenne prime it is important enough (one of the first five) to warrant a redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mersenne prime. I thought about this, and I will allow my article to be deleted. OmegaBuddy13find me here Agree with you. --OmegaBuddy13 (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 8000 (number) where it is already mentioned as a Mersenne prime. Praemonitus (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 8000 (number) per Praemonitus. Pam  D  14:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If additional facts are discovered that can be mentioned for this number, then it can be readily inserted onto the '8000 (number)' article. The same can not be said for the 'Mersenne prime' article. Praemonitus (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Mersenne prime as long as that is the only thing the number is known for. Readers will most likely be looking for that connection when looking up 8191, and avoiding 8000 (number) saves them a step. If other facts concerning 8191 are added to 8000 (number), then redirect 8191 (number) to 8000 (number), as Praemonitus proposed. I'd say being a Mersenne prime is important enough fro the article not to be deleted altogether. Gap9551 (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2015 (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.