Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/387 (number)
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cydebot (talk | contribs) at 20:12, 23 April 2006 (Robot: Fixing up links to AfD templates.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 20:12, 23 April 2006 by Cydebot (talk | contribs) (Robot: Fixing up links to AfD templates.)
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No content. Thue | talk 21:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- This article was only just created today. We have other articles on numbers (which surprised me). But if we don't have some content in here when this vfd times-out then Delete as non-notable (and we can recreate it if some discovers the significance of 387). RJFJR 21:34, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Information about the number 387 belongs at 300 (number), along with all other numbers greater than 299 and less than 400. — Ливай | ☺ 22:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- On the other hand, 360 (number), 365 (number), 366 (number) and 369 (number) all have their own articles, but of these I think only 360 has enough unique properties to merit a separate article. — Ливай | ☺ 22:25, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I put a speedy notice on it originally, so I guess I'd better vote delete. I've certainly no objection to number articles (I like numbers), but this one as created is beneath silly. sjorford:// 22:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy as having no content that is not obvious from the title. humblefool® 23:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy. No content. --BM 02:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I wikified the article to make it somewhat more useful. (Note: this is a comment to allow others to change their votes.) Georgia guy 14:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You're joking, right? Give us a break. My five-year old daughter might be intrigued that 387 is the sum of 300, 80, and 7, but if you think this is encyclopedic content, you have no business editing the Wikipedia. --BM 15:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. There's no real content. A number is not inherently notable. Carrp | Talk 15:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree that this is not a speedy candidate. I wish that "no content that is not obvious from the title" had made it, but it didn't. This article has no real content. There have been several days for number-theoreticians to chime in with anything interesting about it and so far nobody has. The article can be re-created IF someone actually comes up with a truly notable and interesting property of the number. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Speedy. No useful info that somebody who can count won't know. Amahabal 00:56, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. There is considerably more content now. Denni☯ 01:37, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)
- But almost all the content is completely adventitious. None of it is really about 387 except for the factorization, and every number that isn't prime has a factorization, so even that isn't very notable. Everything else is just random things that happen to be the 387th of something, for no particular reason. Faethon387 03:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.