Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of near Wieferich primes


 * 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. L Faraone  00:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

List of near Wieferich primes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Content of this list is not encyclopedic and the information is already present in OEIS, which is a more appropriate place for this information. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * delete Topic already seems to be covered in Wieferich prime article. Don't think this page adds anything useful.Tigerboy1966 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Wieferich prime, which would benefit the Wieferich prime article by making the table of near Wieferich primes more complete, and hence, more encyclopedic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – See discussion page for the Wieferich primes article, section Near-Wieferich primes, where the nominator for deletion was challenged a couple of times on the reduction of the list in that article. While these may have been corrected, there doesn't appear to be a consensus there at this time regarding the matter, and it nevertheless seems best to include all in the Wieferich prime article, perhaps as a collapsible list. After all, this is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Also, I don't see this information listed on the OEIS article whatsoever, as stated in the nomination. This is not intended to be disparaging to the nominator whatsoever. Can the nominator perhaps expound upon the rationale not to include all of the near-Wieferich primes on Wikipedia? I restored the merge tag for this article to be merged into the Wieferich prime article, which was removed by the nominator. Northamerica1000 (talk) 07:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The list of near-Wieferich primes in OEIS is here. The table of all near-Wieferich primes was in the article (see for example this revision) but I reduced the table length after the discussion here. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * delete — There is nothing new in the List of near Wieferich primes article as compared to Wieferich prime section besides longer list (table) of numbers. However, this longer list of numbers has no encyclopedic value for general audience, and Wikipedia should not duplicate OEIS in this respect. Maxal (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why a general audience? Why not a specialist audience? James500 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact that this information is already included in OEIS is, in of itself, utterly irrelevant. The effect of WP:NOR is that everything in Wikipedia is included elsewhere. James500 (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC) If this information is included in the Online Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (emphasis added), I do not understand how it can fail be encyclopedic. James500 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: The criteria being applied are WP:IINFO and WP:NOTMIRROR. There is some overlap in the missions of WP and OEIS and there is a consequent tendency to copy material from OEIS without due consideration of whether it is encyclopedic. There are other freely available resources with mathematical tables so there is no need for WP duplicate them, especially as it is in conflict with WP's role as an encyclopedia. Lists of values are encyclopedic when they serve as examples and aid understanding of the subject; but in general a single line should be sufficient for this purpose. The 'Wieferich prime' article already covers the encyclopedic content of this article.--RDBury (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We base our decisions about what articles are encyclopedic on reliable sources. The publisher of OEIS, itself an encyclopedia, considers this topic encyclopedic, so we should follow that lead rather than the subjective opinion of Wikipedia editors as to what is encyclopedic. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Reply to RDBury: This list does not fall into any of the four categories listed in WP:NOTMIRROR. In particular, it doesn't fall into category 3. A list of all known near-Wiefrich numbers is not a source, its a simple fact. James500 (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep as a proven encyclopedic topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete articles should not consist of long pieces of numerical data without putting that data into context for a general reader, per WP:NOT, and a list of this type could become extremely long indeed. Articles on types of integers either list all known examples (if the number of known examples is fairly small) or list the first few cases. Wieferich prime already lists the near Wieferich primes for A less than 10 and if the list were to be merged the resulting article would be overly long. Hut 8.5 15:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE is an instruction to delete three specific types of articles. This list does not fall within any of those three categories.
 * This article is not long. The data is clearly put into context. James500 (talk) 16:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * On what objective criteria would the article Wieferich prime be "overly" long if this was merged into it? James500 (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It falls under the third point of WP:NOT. Wikipedia articles do not consist of large amounts of specialist numerical data. The only pages in Category:Mathematics-related lists that are of this type are things like Table of prime factors which are easily accessable to a general audience. The list in Wieferich prime contains background information and discussion of why these numbers are significant, this list does not. The list at the moment is based on a single search within an arbitrarily chosen range and with certain possible values of A. There's no particular reason why these values were chosen and if different values were picked then the list could become much, much longer. WP:SPLITLIST specifies that a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope, the list in Wieferich prime is perfectly adequate for the purpose of providing illustrative examples of near Wieferich primes and doesn't need to be longer. Besides if the list were merged then well over half the length of the Wieferich prime article would consist of lists of these numbers which would mean that page would fall foul of WP:NOT. Hut 8.5 17:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merging the information in a collapsed table, titled "complete list of near Wieferich primes" wouldn't be particularly burdensome to the Wieferich prime article. This would take up about two lines of text space. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:17, 8 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.