Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2147483659 (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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

2147483659 (number)

2147483659 (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)

A deletion proposal was removed without explanation. That PROD said "Clear fail of Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)", and that seems to me to sum it up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I spent a little while looking for a good redirect target. The number is surprisingly important, but not notable enough. Having said surprisingly it is a CITRIX error number and the next prime after a Mersenne prime, these are both due to it being just above a a 2 power, XB000000B). It is also a member (the 32nd) of a complete sequence, documented at (sequence A203074 in the OEIS), again linked to being the next prime after a 2 power. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

Maybe redirect to Complete_sequence#OEIS_A203074 All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

• Delete as prodder. I still don't think it passes Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). "Next prime after a power of two" (or various nearly equivalent formulations) is one sort-of-interesting property in which it's only the 30th or so entry, and can be expressed more simply as "smallest prime number not expressible as a signed long", but what I want to see is two or more actually-interesting properties in which it's in the first five numbers. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Depending on byte length of course. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC).
    
• Weak delete or redirect. It's not like it's 8675309 or some such. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• delete I don’t see it being discussed at the suggested redirect target, which also is a hidden anchor, so anyone stumbling across it and following the redirect will be likely confused as to what bit of that article is relevant. No other plausible target suggests itself and it is certainly not independently notable.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Just not notable, per above. PianoDan (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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.