Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinvigesimal

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. Sandstein 05:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quinvigesimal

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's not clear, to me, whether a base 25 numbering system would pass our requirements - but on account that the only application of this numbering system is found in Riven, I'm thinking it does not seem to meet our notability requirements, as it seemingly exists only in a single video game. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google gives only four hits on the entire web so not notable. Dricherby (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This base has no particular mathematical significance and the article itself states explicitly that it has no historical significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One or two sentences (at Riven) should be it. Deleet teh articel. OGM I sukc ta typign todya ;) - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 11:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No really, in base 25, you can't tell by the units digit if a number is odd or even, and 1/2 is a repeating quinvigesimal fraction. That's enough proof that the system is useless for general use, more so than base 8, base 12, base 20 etc.
- The standard is notability, not usefulness, ability to determine whether a number is odd or convenience of expressing 1/2. (And, by essentially the same argument, decimal is useless because it makes it hard to determine whether a number is a multiple of 3 and hard to write 1/3.) Dricherby (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, so the standard is notability, not ability. So what? 1st, check out some formulae. You'll find more with a factor 2 or 1/2 than with a factor 3 or 1/3. So base-25 (or any odd base) is less useful than an even base. So any odd base will have serious issues in real life (2nd, Which in turn will lower its chances to become notable). 3rd, there is no single system which will not fail on any number; in fact, all systems will fail on (in a math sense)almost all numbers. So you cannot say base-25 is no worse than base 10, because if you did, no base system would be better than any other. All your base, - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 15:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feh. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:57, 8 May 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.