Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Comparison of number bases

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  delete.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 19:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Comparison of number bases

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This draft is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of both Radix and List of numeral systems. Moreover, the small part of the draft that is not in the articles seems WP:OR.

Therefore, even with major improvements, there is no chance that this draft becomes eventually an article in the main space. So, it is better to apply immediately the WP:Snowball clause, and delete it immediately. D.Lazard (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I was the one who originally PRODDED the article. At first, it read like an essay, and had original research problems. The original title was Best number base. I suggested the move to Draft:Comparison of number bases and created the template for the current form of the draft. I can see how the WP:OR concerns still stand, as much of the content still has a similar style to the old article, but the redundancy I didn't foresee when the article was moved. The problem is that there are not enough reliable sources explicitly comparing the number bases, so it's hard to create a comparison article on this topic. I think this draft could still be salvageable, but it would take a lot of work to fix. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3162:853D:E27:61C2 (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I was the one who added prod2 to the originall form of the article, under WP:NOTESSAY. I agree with nom per my comments at the talkpage. Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  22:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm probably biased, but I do agree that the draft should be salvageable. Username142857 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete and transwiki to Fandom Based on other arguments over here, I think it would be better if this page was deleted. However, it might find a better home at a Fandom wiki. Fandom wikis have different standards for inclusion, so the article could find a home there. I suggested to the user who created this page that they transwiki it to Googology Wiki, and User:Skarmory suggested it should be transwikied to Wikiversity. Based on the discussion on the talk page, the best thing to do would be to delete the page and transwiki it, most likely to Fandom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3162:853D:E27:61C2 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: I saw Wikiversity's wikiversity:Help:Essay page; does this cover the original idea of this draft? Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  01:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I saw this mentioned over at WT:MATH, checked it out, and concluded that it was a WP:NOR-violating essay attempt that, even if completely overhauled, would be redundant with radix. I know there can be a sentiment against deleting drafts at MfD rather than letting them expire, but when a draft is never going to be an article, it's better to get the matter over with. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, you could argue that radix is redundant with mathematics. But if 'redundant with radix' is the problem, can the article be incorporated with radix? Username142857 (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, radix is not redundant with mathematics by any stretch of the imagination. And as I said, the problem is not just that it is currently redundant, but that it would be redundant even if all its other problems were fixed. The content is opinionated soapboxing, which is not suitable for an encyclopedia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PatrickR2 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. The author of the draft edits it actively (at least 18 edits today). It seems that this is for making it deliberately less encyclopedic, for example by using systematically base 6 instead of the common decimal base: . D.Lazard (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Come on! This is why base 6 should be preferred over base 10. Please stop! Username142857 (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. The primary editor apparently has a good motive --- helping readers understand why someone might choose one base over another. But the article is written like an opinion piece. Crucially, it does not proceed from reliable sources. It is written in an informal, non-encyclopedic style. That can be fixed later, but it would take some work. My recommendation is that the primary editor spend a while improving the related Wikipedia articles (Radix, List of numeral systems, etc.), learn what the common practices are, and then decide whether another article is warranted. Mgnbar (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's warranted as the other articles, despite claims, don't quite fit with the scope of what I'm trying to do. Username142857 (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research/opinion piece with no hope of being accepted. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've been going at me for a while now. Is that the real reason, or is it because I written the article? Username142857 (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you don't cast aspersions at other editors. As it stands, your draft article is headed for deletion. The reasons have been stated over and over again. Nobody has a vendetta against you. User:Username142857, I'd suggest you back down and try to understand what the experienced editors around here are saying to you. If you don't do this, you may end up being blocked indefinitely for not getting the point. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3942:60E9:D569:2E31 (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Joke Username3021213 (Username142857 converted to senary) has converted the page to senary. GeoffreyT13132 (GeoffreyT2000 converted to senary) (talk) 34:044, 32 February 13210 (22:28, 20 February 2022 converted to senary) (UTC)

Anyway,
 * Delete Unlikely to become notable with a fully-fledged article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you mean fledged? :) 2601:647:5800:1A1F:3942:60E9:D569:2E31 (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I haved fixed the typo. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The article creator has been indefinitely blocked by for not being here to build an encyclopedia. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Should we close this as WP:SNOW, based on the uniform support for deletion? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:51BE:AD2B:DA8:B1FC (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as needing to be blown up and started over if there is hope for this. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Any further discussion can go to the likely block review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 22 February 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.