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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

224 (number)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

224 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NNUM, as it does not have "at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties", nor is it culturally significant. It seems to have mainly been created in order to satisfy the interesting number paradox, but even that is no longer very relevant as 198 has been the smallest number without a Wikipedia article for over a year now. Regarding the mathematical properties listed in the article, being a practical number is not an "interesting property" as a quarter of all integers up to 224 are practical numbers, so it's barely more significant than being an even number. I also don't think being "the smallest k with λ(k) = 24, where λ(k) is the Carmichael function" is very interesting. I imagine these were simply the result of searching for 224 at The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences. Nosferattus (talk) 05:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Keep - This is not the only integer page with dubious standalone notability. There are some factoids here which it would be nice not to lose completely, so I'm hesitant to delete outright, but I think there needs to be a larger project to do something like merge all integers 200-299 into 200 (number). Doing a spot check, I can see many of these articles double as pseudo-disambiguation pages, e.g. the "In other fields" section of 218 (number). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that both practical numbers and sums of two cubes are interesting properties, but that 224 is not prominent enough in the lists of numbers with those properties to be notable for that. So I agree that, in the state in which this article was nominated, it did not demonstrate notability. On the other hand, I think the cultural applications (one existing in the article as nominated, its connection with the interesting number paradox, and two I just added, in cryptography and ancient coinage) are enough for a standalone article. The fact stated in the nomination that it is not currently the smallest missing number article is totally irrelevant to its notability, which cannot stem from the current state of Wikipedia but only from what reliable sources state about it. It is listed in published sources as being noteworthy for this fact, that it was once the smallest missing article in Wikipedia; that notability is permanent, deriving from the publications about it, and does not depend on whether that status has changed later. As for the pseudo-disambiguation pages for bus lines numbered X etc: I think we're better off having real disambiguation pages for that sort of material, and only keeping material in the number articles that is relevant to the mathematics of the number or to cultural uses of that number on its own, but not keeping material where it is merely one in a sequence of numerical labels for things. Fortunately, that widespread disease of our number articles is not present here. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that this AfD inspired me to start a discussion about trivia and pseudo-DAB in number articles here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Move trivia and disambiguation content out of number articles Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only one of the straight-up math properties really contributes to a case for wiki-notability, being one of the smallest numbers to be the sum of distinct positive cubes in more than one way. This OEIS sequence is labeled "nice", and 224 occurs early in it (the third item). In the other "nice" sequences, 224 appears too late to really be an illustrative example of that sequence. By itself, that wouldn't be enough to warrant a whole article. But the connection with the interesting number paradox is documented, and it counts. Someone else said it, so we can report that they said it. One good number-theory property, a recreational mathematics property, and the appearances in coinage and cryptography are enough to clear the bar. XOR'easter (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per reasons given above. Also, frankly, I don't want this to be the only number in the 200 family without an article. There are certainly less notable pages in that bunch (see 226, 234, and many more). PopoDameron ⁠talk 17:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a super convincing argument.--Ipatrol (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I'm not saying it's my main argument or anything at all. Mainly, it's as above, but it's just also something to keep in mind, even if just a bit. PopoDameron ⁠talk 16:52, 29 March 2023 (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.
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/224_(number)
No tags for this post.