Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of prime factors


 * 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. DES (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Table of prime factors

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unlike list of prime numbers, which was correctly kept because it was not a numerical table, this article really is a numerical table. Those are not encyclopedic. Could possibly be transwikied to Wikibooks. --Trovatore 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment see also Articles for deletion/Table of divisors. --Trovatore 04:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Same comment as I made on Articles for deletion/Table of divisors:  This is a computer-generated table (I hope), easily reconstructed &mdash; for whatever reason &mdash; by anyone who could possibly find a use for such a table.  It's a clear case of WP is WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information.  Silly rabbit 04:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Silly rabbit. Do not transwiki this useless data. --Lambiam Talk  06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Perhaps I'm old, but I remember, as a kid, looking at such tables in books, and being fascinated by the patterns and lack of patterns in such a table. This table has much greater value than simply being a place to look up the factors of a given integer (that, yes, can be calculated very easily).  It has great value as an essentially graphic representation of the structure of the integers (or at least it gives a glimpse into that structure) and I think it's worth keeping for that reason. Doctormatt 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete ot transwiki, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Kusma (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or keep. This is no doubt a useful table, obviously verifiable, but hardly subject to revision by later editors.  The simultaneous claims that this information is both mathematically trivial and "indiscriminate information" only shows that "indiscriminate information" is the new "I don't like it".  - Smerdis of Tlön 14:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most of the mathematics articles on Wikipedia are inaccessible to beginners. This is one of the few that isn't. For many people it is helpful to see numerous worked out examples of concepts like prime factorization and, as Doctormatt points out, some are intrigued by the patterns and motivated to learn more. Tabular information used to be an important part of mathematical literature. There is no reason to expunge it from an encyclopedia.--agr 15:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments responding to Doctormatt and Smerdis: I agree that the table is useful, and it's not in fact the case that I don't like it. I don't think it's encyclopedic, meaning it's not the kind of thing you'd find in Brittanica, even if they had unlimited size and resources.
 * It's worth a few words here about what encyclopedias are for. They are reference works, but they are not almanacs or handbooks. That is, article content should not be pedagogical (that style is appropriate to a textbook, not an encyclopedia) but it should be at least partly expository (because otherwise the content would belong in a handbook or almanac). The content of these "table" articles is not at all expository; there is nothing to expound upon; or rather, it is expounded upon elsewhere. --Trovatore 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You've got it wrong, the wording in WP:NOT is that WP is not primarily an almanac, and it goes on to state that it contains almanac-like elements. DGG`01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I tend to think that math tables ought to be at Wikisource, myself, but they don't seem to want them.  As you say, it isn't the sort of data that wants rewording or frequent revision.  My 1957 Britannica has some basic trigonometry tables in it, and Wikipedia is still not paper.  If Wikibooks will have them, move them there, but it ought to be kept somewhere, and to be easily linkable from related articles here. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply. Your opinions on what "kind of thing you'd find in Brittanica, even if they had unlimited size and resources" and the purpose of encyclopedias are just that, your opinion. My dictionary defines an encyclopedia as a book "covering all branches of human knowledge." Take a look at the 1911 Britannica article on logarithm and you'll find far more expository material than you'll ever find here. The two-volume Encyclopedic Dictionary of Mathematics has over 100 pages of tables in the back.--agr 18:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is, of course, my opinion, for which I think I have given a reasonable basis, with which others can agree or disagree. I don't get your point about the 1911 argument having lots of exposition -- so does our logarithm article, which is undeniably encyclopedic. My point is that tables are not encyclopedic precisely because they are not expository.  It's a pity that Wikisource doesn't want this sort of material; it strikes me as much more appropriate there -- but the absence of a host for it there does not make it appropriate here. --Trovatore 19:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have said pedagogical to match your terms. The 1911 EB article has much more detail and worked out examples than our article has. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But the normal meaning of encyclopedic is very broad and comprehensive. Can you seriously argue that this article is less worthy that Pikachu? As for this article not being expository enough, Wikipedia has thousands of lists that contain no exposition. See Category:Lists.--agr 19:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * List articles of that sort are not really articles so much as navigational aids, somewhat like disambiguation pages. I'm not a big fan of them but accept them as sort of an enumerated exception to the principle that articles in mainspace should be encyclopedic. I wouldn't cry if all the pop culture articles got deleted in one fell swoop, but at least those articles are about concepts (however banal), not simply data. --Trovatore 19:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In February this year, I was involved in a series of AfDs concerning Category:Lists of films with features in common. An editor nominated every single article in that category for deletion. There was general consensus that list that were well organized and supplied additional information were preferred to lists that were merely navigational aids and many of the latter were deleted, while the well organized ones survived. My favorite example is List of films that most frequently use the word ****, which survived easily (it's sixth unsuccessful AfD nomination) because it is so rich in information. I think the key word in your last comment is "fan," the other F-word. These things all come down to popularity contests and "encyclopedic" is always interpreted in whatever way an advocate wants, not in its plain dictionary meaning. --agr 20:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This entry contains sufficient explanatory text so that it does not fall into the "indiscriminate collection of information" category. Also, the usefulness of this table warrants its inclusion in Wikipedia.  Information can also be added to Wikisource.  AlphaEta 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikisource has removed all mathematical tables claiming they lack the expertise to maintain that type of material. We, on the other hand, do have that expertise, so the material should be kept here.--agr 18:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The "explanatory" text is very worthwhile and covers many things not already covered at prime factorization. As for the table per se, 1 to 100 might be sufficient to illustrate the "explanatory" text. Anton Mravcek 20:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that the "properties" section has been added since the AfD nomination. The properties section might very possibly constitute a worthwhile list article on its own (not committing myself on that as I haven't given it much thought, but offhand it seems reasonable). But that would be a different article, one that would not logically appear under the current title. --Trovatore 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep not an indiscriminate list, for indeed, it is discriminated by being primes in a certain range. -N 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic information about numbers.--Patrick 23:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Regards, Tim V.B.{ critic &amp; life &amp; speak } 00:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I made the current tables and added the properties section. It shows prime factorizations have connection and usefulness to many topics we have articles about. Factorization is fundamental in number theory, much studied, and has important real world use in cryptography. We have a whole category about factorization: Category:Integer factorization algorithms. Table of prime factors is a lighter read for the less advanced. We have hundreds of articles about individual numbers which include the prime factorization. The tables show them nicely together and link the individual articles. It is 4 years old and has been translated to at least 10 other Wikipedia languages who copied the current or former tables. http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Mathematical_Table shows the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica wrote a lot about prime factor tables. It could be a good source for a very encyclopedic history section in our article. It says among many other things "The existing factor tables extend to 10,000,000", and about a factor table: "The arrangement of the results on the page, which is due to Burckhardt, is admirable for its clearness and condensation, the least factors for 9000 numbers being given on each page." I guess that if an encyclopedia writes so much about factor tables and mentions many details about the space they occupy, then it would also show them if space was not an issue. PrimeHunter 00:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The "properties" section might well be OK; my objection is to the table. (Of course with the table gone, the article consisting of the properties section would have to be renamed). So I want to distinguish here between the table and the properties section -- one of these things is really not like the other. Yes, factorization is important, but an article on factorization would explain factorization, not list the factorizations of numbers. I don't think your conclusion about what an encyclopedia would show is defensible -- factor tables are just fine; they just belong somewhere other than an encyclopedia. --Trovatore 00:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Silly Rabbit Feydakin 00:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. That information may be correct, it may be useful, but it is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place for such information. It is more appropriate at Wikisource. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just a reminder to everyone suggesting to transwikify this article to Wikisource, Wikisource does not accept this kind of material. See s:Wikisource:What_is_Wikisource?:
 * "What do we include and exclude at Wikisource?
 * Some basic criteria for texts excluded from Wikisource are:
 * 3. Mathematical data, formulas, and tables"
 * –Pakman044 04:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That such content is not acceptable at Wikisource does not mean we need to keep it here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I fail to see anything encyclopedic in a verbose table of data. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be unreasonable to ask you to supply a sourced definition of "encyclopedic" that supports that position? None of my dictionaries do.--agr 14:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I can't supply a sourced definition of "encyclopedic". Based on my common sense however, I believe that an encyclopedia as a collection of articles on certain topics. For example, prime number is encyclopedic. But this table of prime factors is a long, long list of data, and I don't feel it belongs here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I hope you can accept that your common sense is not a statifactory answer for some of us that diagree. We have thousands of lists on Wikipedia, many of them math related. In particular we have several that would seem to fll in your category of long lists of data. See List of mathematics reference tables. Should all of these go? Maybe this discussion should be moved to WikiProject Mathematics.--agr 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I hope you can accept that your common sense is not a statifactory answer for some of us that diagree. We have thousands of lists on Wikipedia, many of them math related. In particular we have several that would seem to fll in your category of long lists of data. See List of mathematics reference tables. Should all of these go? Maybe this discussion should be moved to WikiProject Mathematics.--agr 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'd happily take out the 'Properties' section, but the table itself is OK as a look-up resource. Charles Matthews 19:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Charles Matthews, although I think the properties section is interesting in its own right. If this was a table of factorizations of polyhedra or automorphic forms, none of the advanced mathematicians would be voting 'delete'. linas 03:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful mathematical table which belongs in an encyclopedia. Also a great example of why "verifiable" should not always mean "attributable to a reliable source". Anyone with a calculator can verify much of the information in this table without having to consult any other source. DHowell 04:25, 31 May 2007 (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.