- 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 redirect to Squaring the square. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cute number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
May fail WP:NOTDICTIONARY? SarahStierch (talk) 08:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible merge There doesn't seem to be a lot of information available about these numbers (tried Google, GBooks, GScholar). Possibly merge with Square number or some other article. I disagree with the dictionary claim, as it may be possible to provide published proofs, diagrams giving examples, etc, but if they're not discussed in reliable sources that's less likely. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of numbers. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What list of numbers? It is actually a geometrical problem, not a piece of the number theory. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's too little here to merge anywhere. This isn't even in OEIS — being in OEIS is by no means strong evidence of notability, but I think not being in it is, for an integer sequence, strong evidence of non-notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing in GBooks or GScholar, not notable. Also existing sources are not reliable (a girl called Emily writing into "Ask Dr Math" is not a WP:RS), so nothing here worth merging. -- 202.124.75.158 (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem does appear in two books in GB. It's obviously aimed at junior and/or recreational mathematics audience. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, this has nothing to do with NOTDICTIONARY. Sadly, there are many users which confuse a short article with a WP:DICTIONARY article, which is a harmful misconception. There are long, but dictionary articles, such as spambot. There are thousands of short, but perfectly encyclopedic articles. This article could be encyclopedic, if there were enough sources to demonstrate notability, but there are no. Moreover, since it is actually a geometrical problem, it should possibly be moved (implicitly merged) to square dissection and fitted with sources found on this query, not "cute number" which is likely not notable enough, alone. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Upd: there is the Squaring the square article which already has sections about several different "squaring the square" problems. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I just don't see how this could be expanded into anything of mathematical interest. Perhaps its interesting that numbers less than 5 aren't 'cute' says something about squares, but the collection of numbers greater than 5 is just... wow. delete. linas (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to squaring the square because the contents has already been merged there. It's an elementary problem, but I suppose if The Universal Book of Mathematics lists it, it might be worth mentioning there. I suppose some people might object to the venue of the proof, but meh, it's easy to check a proof like that. By the way, the problem-text from "Emily" also appears in this book (p. 63) published by the Australian Mathematics Trust, under "Junior Questions". It seems the problem was given in some Australian Junior math competition in 2001. Also, several proofs are given in that Australian book on pp. 82-84. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to squaring the square - agree with Tijfo098. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:38, 3 September 2012 (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.