Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths

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. postdlf (talk) 14:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of decimal-fraction equivalents: 0 to 1 by 64ths

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

This article is a table of fraction-to-decimal equivalents for all fractions between 0 and 1 where the numerator=64. It is unreferenced and fails WP:NOTGUIDE. The original author has spent quite a bit of time formatting the table, but it is not encyclopedic. When this article was PRODded a few years ago the author made a passionate plea to keep it on the article's talk page; I encourage editors to consider those comments. Pburka (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. Absolutely no encyclopedic value here. Wikipedia is WP:NOTACALCULATOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination criterion is invalid per WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. Referencing is not necessary per WP:CALC. Nor does WP:NOTGUIDE apply, since the page is stating mathematical facts, not showing how to do something. There is no such policy as WP:NOTACALCULATOR. The only remaining question is whether this table is notable, and such tables do indeed appear in numerous textbooks and standard reference works (e.g. [1]). It doesn't seem very notable to me, but then I live in a "metric" country. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You've given no justification for keeping this article. Wikipedia is not WP:INDISCRIMINATE, specifically "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion". 2+2=4, but that doesn't mean we need an article to confirm it. (WP:NOTACALCULATOR: "The output of an ordinary calculator is not notable.") Clarityfiend (talk) 10:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "such tables do indeed appear in numerous textbooks and standard reference works" speaks to notability, though notability is not very high here. However, no valid arguments for deletion have been made. -- 101.119.15.209 (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not encyclopedic. Looking at precedents, while list of prime numbers survived AfD[2], it provides information and navigation links on types of primes. Other lists have been deleted in the past: see for examples Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of numbers that are not primes, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of values of the cosh function, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of numbers ordered by Google rating. The category Category:Mathematical tables also indicates that tables of this sort are not a major part of Wikipedia. There are 3 reasons for keeping a list, but this isn't any use for navigation or developing Wikipedia and I don't think it's a "valuable information source" since it's easy to calculate the values and nobody has explained for what purpose such a table would be needed beyond the vague claim "similar charts are used every day by machinists" which isn't substantiated or justified. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTACALCULATOR. While this information may indeed be useful or even interesting to some people, it's simply not encyclopedic. Lists of fractions is what WP:NOT#And finally... was meant to address. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal (WP:NOTMANUAL) and not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). Plenty of other websites with this kind of info. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:17, 29 November 2013 (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.