Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Categories of Numbers

Categories of Numbers
Category:Amicable numbers, Category:Bell numbers, Category:Carmichael numbers, Category:Deficient numbers, Category:Double factorials, Category:Fermat numbers, Category:Fibonacci numbers, Category:Giuga numbers, Category:Harshad numbers, Category:Kaprekar numbers, Category:Lucas numbers, Category:Motzkin numbers, Category:Noncototients, Category:Nontotients, Category:Pell numbers, Category:Primorials, Category:Smarandche consecutive numbers, Category:Smith numbers, Category:Tetranacci numbers, Category:Unitary perfect numbers, Category:Untouchable numbers, Category:Weird numbers and Category:Zeisel numbers Each of these categories has two or less members, and all of them are already better explained in their respective articles. Radiant_* 11:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and replace each with a list . There's nothing intrinsically wrong with these categories except their general underpopulation.  My vote here is based on an anticipation that these categories as a group would contain example instances of each number class and I don't think that categories are a good way of organizing such instance groups; my feeling is that lists are a better approach.  Comment: I'm generally uncomfortable with nominating for deletion on this page groups of categories; nomination of a group of categories implies there's something wrong with the concept(s) being addressed and that there is a bigger problem than this page/process is designed to handle (in my opinion).  Is there another process more suitable? Courtland 14:24, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * modifying my vote based on the existence of the lists, pointed out by Radiant. Courtland 14:55, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)
 * Note that the lists you mention all already exist. For instance, Fibonacci number. And note that groups of categories are routinely nominated here, although usually for renaming. Radiant_* 14:42, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I understand that the nomination of groups is routine here; that doesn't alter my discomfort with it being done. Courtland 14:55, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)


 * Delete I have no problem with having one subcategory whose elements are the lists of numbers discussed here.  It's just an inefficient use of the categorization system. Gene Nygaard 03:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Even when there are more numbers with articles than the article of the kind of number lists (e.g., Harshad number), the category is still not as useful as the article. When such articles provide a link to the OEIS sequence, I'd rather follow that than look at the category. PrimeFan 22:29, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)