Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calculating Number Bases

 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 transwiki to WikiBooks. That means that the article will stay until the transwiki is completed. I will submit this article to the Transwiki queue. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calculating Number Bases

 * Delete unless WikiBooks wants it, then transwiki --Xcali 16:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I have been unable to finish my article, as I have been working on it at school. I will have the time to properly format it by Sunday, June 12, 2005. I was hoping that such an article would help the people who were struggling to do such math problems in my, and in other schools. Thank you. Sorry for the problems that this may have caused. - Lightning3006 19:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment; regardless of your good intentions, I think the issue is that the article is one which is nonencyclopaedic - it belongs in a math text. It looks great, and informative, it's just that wikipedia might not be the place for such an entry.  jglc | t | c 19:44, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * help the people who were struggling to do such math problems in my, and in other schools &mdash; You want to write instructional textbooks to lead people step-by-step through exercises in mathematics? Get yourself over to the Wikibooks Mathematics bookshelf and Wikiversity, pronto!  You're exactly the sort of contributor that they want. What you are writing is not an encyclopaedia article, however. Uncle G 16:39, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks. I'm sure they'd love to have it there. (Leave a note so the author can find it). Mgm|(talk) 20:58, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your advice. I think that it might fit in WikiBooks, as it a major part of Number Theory. However, I think that wikipedia would be a good place for it as there are multiple other pages on Number Theory and such. Wikipedia is somewhat lacking the mathemaitcal department, and should thus be a good addition to the (hopefully soon) all inclusive nature of WikipediaLightning3006
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a Big Book of Everything. For many things, one looks elsewhere than in an encyclopaedia.  We have sibling projects covering some of those areas. Uncle G 16:39, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks. JamesBurns 05:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep it here. I looks great.
 * A step-by-step instructional textbook, complete with author's signature. Wikibooks and delete. I would be happy to perform the transwikification, if help on that score is required. Uncle G 16:39, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
 * I left an introductory message on the user's talk page. I'm also working on cleaning up the HTML that was in the entry (it looks like it was copied straight from a personal site), and took the signature off the entry. The latter was just for my own fulfillment; whenever you're all ready, transwiki and delete from Wikipedia. jglc | t | c 19:56, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe an encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, as for "how-to" argument, well, every algorithm could be considered a how-to, yet we have pages on different algorithms (sorting, prime tests and other mathematical problems). I can't see why the algorithm on converting base of a number shold be given a different treatment.  Grue   20:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Qualifies as encyclopedic: number base calculation is both a notable and important activity in mathematics and computing. We have other articles describing strategy for reaching mathematical results, including statistics.  Visitors reading about binary or base10 would benefit from seeing how these are calculated as part of understanding the concepts being described.  Since Wikipedia is not paper, I think it makes sense to include it here.  Tobycat 05:56, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a great article. However, with the whole issue on "encyclopedic material," i'll just tell the authour (lihtning3006) to edit it a bit and add some backround info etc. smarterkid --Smarterkid 17:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to say thank you to jglc for cleaning up the HTML. I did copy it from an MS-Word made HTML page. I will add information on the background of the more important bases, namely Base-2, and Base-16, as they are the most used, in today's world, and after that, if it is still too un-encyclopedic, I will move it. --Lightning3006 17:36, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem. You seem to really want to contribute to making Wikipedia better, which is more than I can say for a lot of users. Keep up the good work, and thanks for being reasonable, whatever the outcome is. jglc | t | c 16:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry that i have been unable to edit. This is my final exams week at my school. I will edit it sometime next week, and finish it up. Thank you. --Lightning3006 01:18, 16 Jun 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 .