- 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 no consensus. Petros471 18:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mythical number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Indiscriminate collection of information. Not every adjective and noun can be put together to make a name, or we would have an article on Red tomatoes. Please note that the present "source" (to a Slate essay) is an improvement on the previous one, according to the talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I actually PROD'ded this myself, but I found a source that not only talks about the issues, but gives it a fair bit of coverage in an acceptably scholarly fashion. And there are additional sources as to this subject dating back to the 70s. The article right now needs some work, but I'm comfortable letting that proceed. Oh, and there are articles on various types of tomatoes, including the recently kept List of tomato cultivars. FrozenPurpleCube 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure an article can be written starting with this; I will agree to any reasonable merge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a ridiculous piece of OR (who exactly believes that the five second rule "derives from science"?). When the best source you can find for an article is slate.com (lead story today: "Mitt Romney's Favourite Book is 'Battlefield Earth'") you know an article's in trouble — iridescenti (talk to me!) 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I'm aware Slate is considered disreputable (It's certainly not a National Inquirer), but even if it is, what about The Public Interest, which was described in the Washington Post as "For 40 years the Public Interest has been perhaps the finest scholarly magazine in America and, in relation to its small and exclusive circulation, surely the most influential." ? Two articles in it are cited in the Slate one, and I think they could be used to establish a better article on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 20:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Imaginary number. (No, not really. Delete unless properly sourced. MM suggests they're there, but I'd like to see them.) -- BPMullins | Talk 18:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per FrozenPurpleCube. This does not seem like a subject that no one would ever write about. JuJube 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, a Google search showed that the term is really used in this sense.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename. The topic is of some interest, but the term "mythical number" should not be made to appear standard (unless some evidence for the claim is adduced). This is one of those cases in which a longer article title may be a good thing. For example, "how Archimedes used infinitesimals" does not give the impression that that whole phrase is in standard use in some field. But if the article had been called "Archimedean infinitesimals" (an oxymoron!) then it might have left that impression. Michael Hardy 03:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, given that the term is used in at least three articles, and that you haven't provided another name, I'm not sure what to do. Still, if you want to propose a move, you can always do so after the AFD is closed if the article is kept. FrozenPurpleCube 04:55, 9 May 2007 (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.