Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime prime number

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 Deleted under WP:SNOW. Capitalistroadster 02:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime prime number

Probable WP:HOAX, stubby definition. — Coren ^(talk) 15:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total bullocks. Worse, it gives the definition of a prime number, then lists several 9, which isn't a prime number. The Evil Spartan 15:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete A mathematical hoax? Looks like a bit of math (or as the Brits call it, maths) student whimsy, or perhaps Mr. Steely is chortling over this as he describes it to his students. The article indicates that a prime prime number can even be divided by "itself, 1 or any other non-prime prime number". Thus, a "prime prime" number is not a "prime number", since it can be divided by something other than itself or 1. But what's a "non-prime prime" number? I guess I don't care care. Mandsford 16:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I don't think this is quite blatantly nonsensical enough to speedy. But delete anyway. —David Eppstein 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; the original editor explained his contribution on my talk page. Anyone who hesitates on whether this article should be deleted or not should probably check there first. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I wonder what a patternation is, and whether they would allow me to perceive the machinations of prime numbers. — Coren ^(talk) 16:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A real mathematician could put together a much better hoax than this one. Acroterion _(talk) 17:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, unverifiable and unsalvageably incoherent. Borderline CSD G1. I humbly suggest early close as this is a prime waste of everybody's time time. TreeKittens 17:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a hoax. Seems that by this definition, most numbers would be "prime prime", but I'm not sure. Math's confusing this early in the morning. Useight 17:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. A hoax, and a poorly written, confusing hoax at best. James Luftan ^contribs 18:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G1 (nonsense), and unconvincing at that. 'non-prime prime'... EyeSerene^TALK 18:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as utter nonsense. It may be coherent nonsense, but it is nonsense nonetheless and there's no reason to keep discussing it. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many many times. DCEdwards1966 19:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since when is 9 prime? Bigdaddy1981 20:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since last September. The economic measure was approved by the House of Commons to aid in TV scheduling on September 10. Mandsford 23:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire "Susan Peter Steely" - I guess this must be the fellow Johnny Cash sang about. Iain99 21:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong strong delete unsourced nonsense. PrimePrimeHunter 21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a coherently nonsensical circular definition. Someguy1221 23:55, 8 August 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.