Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of numbers that are not primes

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE, but by User:Mikkalai, not by me. -Splash 01:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbers that are not primes

delete this crap --24.158.179.87 22:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enclyclopedic list. Annonymous contributor 22:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC) (actually 62.252.0.6 2005-07-26 22:35:51 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:45:10, 2005-07-27 (UTC))
Delete - by definition, there are an infinite number of these. Keeping such a list has no practical value, it's just silliness. -Satori 22:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- By definition there are an infinite number of prime numbers, but there is a List of prime numbers. Deleting this article but keeping that one would be plain inconsistent. (62.252.0.6 2005-07-26 23:12:38 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:45:10, 2005-07-27 (UTC))
  - Not really. Prime numbers have a certain notable property. Non-primes have the reverse of that, a non-notable property. So...we won't note them.--DNicholls 23:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If primes are notable, even though there are an infinite number of them, by definition non-primes must be equally notable for not being primes. If a list that potentially contains an infinite number of numbers can be notable, a list that contains number not in the first list is also notable. (62.252.0.6 2005-07-26 23:42:39 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:45:10, 2005-07-27 (UTC))
      - You have a curious definition of 'by definition'. Primes are not notable because they're infinite, they're notable because they have a notable quality. Infinity is a side argument. Saying non-Primes are notable because they're not-this-notable-thing would mean I'm notable as a non-John Travolta.--DNicholls 23:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Well then, I'm more notable for being a non-George-W-Bush. Same number of people in the group, just more notability that my group is distinct by lacking. Barno 01:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference: The cardinality of the prime numbers is bounded by the cardinality of the integers (aleph nought), but the cardinality of non-prime numbers is greater than aleph nought, as all real numbers in the interval (0,1) are numbers that are not prime. Thus, prime numbers and non-prime numbers have an infinite number, but there are more non-prime numbers. --Pagrashtak 02:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete--DNicholls 23:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is redicolous. Shanes 23:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete there is no point to this list whatsoever. And delete List of prime numbers too. User Satori is correct. DES 23:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked at List of prime numbers I find that it is a sensible organized list of particular primes with particular properties, not an attempt to list all primes or randome primes. DES 23:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - A list of non primes can also be ordered by type, and particular non-primes also have particular properties. This list is not an attempt to list all non-primes or random non-primes. Given the chance to grow it will prove just as useful and encyclopedic as the List of primes. (62.252.0.6 2005-07-26 23:42:39 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:45:10, 2005-07-27 (UTC))
I'd love to vote keep, but it probably should be deleted. Hansonc 23:21, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Delete this. Keep List of prime numbers since it is a list of notable primes. Let us see if the author can establish notability for any non-primes. -- RHaworth 23:23:23, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
- Many non-primes are notable for not being primes: for example, 4 is notable for being the lowest interger greater than one that isn't a prime. I could go on, but this sort of useful information belongs in this article, not here. (62.252.0.6 2005-07-26 23:56:37 according to edit history. Uncle G 00:45:10, 2005-07-27 (UTC))
  - Delete unless article is improved to the quality level of List of prime numbers before VFD ends. --Metropolitan90 01:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. It is possible that this list could be expanded to be useful, but right now it is simply an arbitrary list of non-primes and is no more interesting than a list of arbitrarily-chosen numbers would be. If the author would add a list of notable non-primes, with the reasons that the chosen numbers are notable, it might be worth keeping. The List of prime numbers contains useful information, and should not be deleted. ManoaChild 00:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to be kidding. Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:26, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Ken 02:30, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Strong Delete absolutely pointless. Anyone that cares about primality of a number relevant to a practical situation would know enough to look in a reasonably large list of primes to see if the number is NOT there... Kinser 02:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Pagrashtak points out, Wikipedia will run out of not-paper before the list in this article even reaches 1. This list is not narrowly construed enough to be useful. And we already have a place for more narrowly construed lists in List of numbers. Delete. Uncle G 03:19:45, 2005-07-27 (UTC)
Delete. Paul August ☎ 03:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. --Trovatore 03:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oleg Alexandrov 04:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless article. — JIP | Talk 05:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite being a supporter of lists this is really stupid. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:25, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
Delete. This is pushing the outer limits of pointlessness. Nandesuka 10:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and make it a category instead. Ashmodai 12:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to include all numbers. Oh, who am I kidding, delete. linas 16:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But maybe worthy of BJAODN because it is even wrong - 1 isn't a prime.Stirling Newberry 18:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WP:BJAODN ~~~~ 19:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of primes, even if necessarily incomplete, is actually useful. A list of non-primes is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Dystopos 19:31, 28 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.