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.
Delete, but its not as bad as some other year-articles I have seen. We have articles for each year going WAYYY to far into the future.
Weatherman9002:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - I will be the sole inclusionist vote on this one, I guess. 3055 is a verifiable number that can be proven to exist. That's more than you can say about 99% of Wikipedia articles. Prove to me that
Saddam Hussein exists ... ohh that's right, you can't. But the existence of the number 3055 follows directly from the fundamental arithematic axions.
Cyde Weys17:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment - There is an infinity of numbers, but there's no space for an infinity of articles. Thus existence alone is not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
TheJabberwock23:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
If you seriously want to extend the ceiling on number articles with no signifigance, you might want to shoot for three digits first, not four. Try
Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. There's a real chance that you'll get your way, but I have to say it's small.
Melchoir07:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - I'll join you on this one Cyde. Did you see what that number is in hex? And its found in quite of few lists of integers. Pretty significant stuff I'd say. --
BostonMA17:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Quite a few lists? Are you aware that OEIS currently contains 116943 lists and counting? Being in only 41 is pathetic.
Melchoir03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Merge into a Wikiproject Numbers subsection of "non-notable numbers" or something. Let it incubate in there for awhile. To me, numbers are inherently notable, although most of them don't have alot of content you can say about them, usually not enough for an article of their own.
KarmafistSave Wikipedia18:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. Wikipedia has enough articles about subjects without any real-world existence. As
Leopold Kronecker said, "God made the integers, all else is the work of man"; and while the underlying theological debate can't be resolved, the existence and singular importance of integers should be clear.
Monicasdude18:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - the factorization is useful, even if it is trivial. Although arguably that would be wikimath.org or something, but as that has yet to exist, most numbers tend to have certain properties in number theory which are encyclopedic to describe.
Elle vécut heureuseà jamais (
Be eudaimonic!)
23:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)reply
You might want to do a little bit more research on that (unless you're counting the trivial case of the number itself and one). --
Cyde Weys06:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I am. And prime numbers are hardly trivial; if this number were prime, it would be more notable than it is now. Still deleteable though.
Melchoir07:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment. Come on, gang. It's easy enough to prove that all positive integers are notable. They're well-ordered. If there were non-notable integers, they'd form a set. Then that set would have a least element. And being the smallest non-notable positive integer would, of course, be notable. And that's a contradiction. So there can't be any non-notable positive integers. So there.
Monicasdude01:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete. If it had any unique properties in number theory, as
Natalinasmpf describes, then it should have an article, but otherwise, there comes a point where details are too trivial to include.
Titoxd(
?!? -
help us)05:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)reply
3055 is the unique integer between 3054 and 3056. It is also the unique product of 611 and 5.
Michael Jackson doesn't even have a unique name people seem to think he is notable enough for an article. --
BostonMA23:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom (or merge per Bookofjude, inter al.) (although I always have wondered about what comes between 3054 and 3056; I always thought it was 12).
Joe22:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep. So it's boring, so what? It is just a number, but it has various mathematical properties associated with it. One thing my education taught me about math is that it's too complicated for me to understand. There's probably a lot you could write about this single number. People complain about how you could go on writing about numbers forever, since they're infinite. That's obviously true, but I'm not going to complain if that means we end up with millions, billions, or even trillions of number articles. Bring 'em on. To me this is like a guy who inherits a big pile of money and complains: "That's too much, I can never count all that..." A little wisdom tells you it's nonsense to worry about such things. Also, a number could potentially fall into an automatically notable category, like natural species in biology, natural languages, planets, stars, that kind of thing: just by existing it has some notability attached to it, since it's automatically going to have some scientific significance.
Everyking06:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Every species, language, planet, and star on Wikipedia has already been written about elsewhere; otherwise we wouldn't know about it. Nobody has written anything about 3055. You propose that we could make up stuff to write about 3055; that's called
original research. It is not the job of an encyclopedia.
Melchoir08:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
I don't think anything that is patently provable using the laws of mathematics can be considered "original research". Mathematics is really an entirely different realm than the rest of the encyclopedia because in mathematics things can be and are proven 100%. --
Cyde Weys08:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
To the contrary, the history of mathematics is full of incorrect proofs and assertions; now, even after a theorem is proven, often it is not accepted without reservation. Whether a mathematical statement is "really" true or not, Wikipedia requires verification of its proof. Now, I am aware that in practice, mathematics pages contain some trivial original research, especially number articles, and we tend to look the other way. But an entire article filled with the stuff, and using it as a justification to exist, is completely and absolutely unacceptable.
Melchoir08:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
There's no such thing as an incorrect proof. Either a proof is a proof or it contains logical errors in which case it's not a proof at all. Can you provide any references for the kind of stuff you're talking about? --
Cyde Weys08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
You know, I was almost going to say, "And don't say Fermat's last theorem", in my post you just responded to. I had actually typed it out and thought better of it and deleted that part. You do know all Fermat did was saying that he "proved" it without offering up any evidence whatsoever, right? --
Cyde Weys09:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Oh, I know. Asserting the existence of a proof is, sadly, not the same thing as having a proof. We Wikipedians, being a wiser sort, prefer to demand verification.
Melchoir09:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Nobody has written anything about this number? How can that be? Recently I read about this kid who was able to recite pi out to over 8,000 digits...nobody has ever factored out the number 3055 before, or written its Roman numeral, and published it somewhere?
Everyking08:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)reply
It's a database query generated by computer and input by the author of the article. If that counts as a reference, you might as well have an "article" on every phrase in the English language by referencing Google searches.
Melchoir18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Delete per WikiProject Numbers. Looking through the OEIS, it's in maybe two interesting lists. The number has no special properties unlike other existing number articles - it's not prime, perfect, square, culturally significant (see, for example,
42 (number) or
1138 (number), a taxicab number, triangular, or any of a large number of interesting, verifiable properties held by most of the numbers which have articles. In other words, unencyclopedic.
Confusing Manifestation03:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)reply
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.