Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square root of 7


 * 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 keep. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 06:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Square root of 7

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

As noted in WT:AFD, having multiple articles for individual square roots is "more than enough". SQRT(2) is special, if for no other reason that it's the first one. The others, not so much. I'll be nominating Square root of 3, Square root of 5, Square root of 6, and Square root of 7. The same argument applies to them all, but I'll make them distinct AfDs because bundled AfDs so often become train wrecks. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep – As in the previous discussion about deleting Square root of 5 from long ago (at Articles for deletion/Square root of 5), there is actually a lot of special stuff, and sources supporting independent notability of Square root of 7 here. Dicklyon (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dicklyon above and the discussions in the related AfDs for the square roots of 3 and 5. There is clearly a substantial literature concerning special properties of this number. I understand there can only be so many articles about square roots of integers, just like there can be only so many articles about integers themselves, but despite that fact, I don't see why this was nominated for deletion. I respectfully suggest you consider withdrawing this group of AfDs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I nominated it partly on behalf of an anonymous editor in WT:AFD, and partly because I agreed with their logic. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Article makes it clear that this square root is notable as a common guinea pig of manual square root computation methods for centuries. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 18:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep for various reasons including its use as a common textbook exercise. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlike other square roots, this has little notability, perhaps the only one being the diagonal in a rectangle inscribed in an equilateral rule. This doesn’t appear to have too many properties. As such, this begins to be where it becomes too much, for the same reason we don’t have a Square root of 8, etc. I couldn’t find a reason why this is useful and can’t be covered elsewhere, as such, I agree with deletion. 68.198.188.106 (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2022 (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.