Base 30 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

30 being the lowest number with three prime factors, Base 30 hase less recurring fractions than any base less than Base 210, which is far too high a base system to be used in any practical sense. This makes it incredibly useful when dealing with fractions, as in Base 30 every fraction between one half and one tenth can be easily expressed apart from one seventh which is scarcely used, so for example if I want to scale an object down by a fraction (which I actually have to do quite often with 3D modeling software) you are able to enter a complete number in the number field without having to round, which would result in a loss in precision.

Aside from the reason mentioned above, it is also used in geocoding when working with converting longitudes and latitudes. Robo37 (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From the looks of it, the main concern in the AfD discussion was the lack of sourcing on the subject, scholarly or otherwise. Do you have any reliable sources to present that would show the notability of Base 30? Perhaps some academic articles studying it for one reason or another? Silverseren^C 14:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The AfD couldn't have been closed any other way. If you want the text to write a proper, sourced article, it can be userfied to you without discussion. If you just want it undeleted, well, the AfD couldn't have been closed any other way, and any subsequent discussion without the presentation of good sources is going to be identical.. WilyD 14:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 16:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (as original nominator). The AfD was closed properly, no new evidence of notability has turned up, and WP:USEFUL is not a persuasive reason for a deletion review. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The nomination argument is incompatible with WP:NOR. Mathematics gets to push the requirement for independent secondary sources, but this article was definately across the line. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See Natural Area Code. It doesn't give any sourses, but from the article content it is apparent that it s used. From a quick google search there is over 10,000 results, some of which seem reliable enough to use as sourses. Robo37 (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse DRV is not AfD2, the reasons stated for review rehash the AFD, not the propriety of the close. Moreover, the close looks pretty much unavoidable, as DGG points out. I don't see secondary sourcing which does more than mention the use of base 30 in passing in the search provided above or other searches (e.g., [1]), save for a few pages which are speculation about why it's used at or mirrored from Wikipedia. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  DRV nominator should have discussed this issue with the AfD closer before bringing the matter here.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore  It is not unusual for AfD !votes to blur wp:notability and wp:verifiability, and this is a problem in this AfD.  Because notability is not based on the content of a Wikipedia article, it is an invalid argument to say that a topic lacks notability because there are no references in the article.  What is unusual here is that the absence of references is not an absence of wp:verifiability, for the same reason that it is not necessary to provide a reference to say that Paris is the capital of France.  Thus the delete !votes that observe that there are no references and imply a problem with WP:Verifiability are flawed.  The AfD deletion argument specifies that it is a Prod.  For articles with verifiable material such as this one, AfD nominators must analyze the alternatives to deletion to prepare the discussion, considering both redirect and merge.  One keep voter correctly induces WP:Good faith that there is a reason for writing this article, and that there are no deadlines at Wikipedia.  There are no verifiable search results provided in the AfD.  No one in the AfD mentions trigesimal being used in Iberian astronomy by the Portuguese Royal astronomer at the time of the Treaty of Tordesillas.  George G Carey in his 1818 book verifies the basic trigesimal mathematical theory presented in the DRV rationale above.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it amusing to see a person who must be using a computer pointing to a source from two centuries ago that says:

    "On the whole, it may be considered that the Binary Scale […] is totally unfit for the most common purposes of calculation. […] We must therefore regard it, rather as a curious instrument of research, than a useful means of promoting the practical operations of Arithmetic."

    And you didn't read footnote 59 of that other source, which pointed out that Zacuto actually wrote the individual "digits" (terceros, segundos, and primeros) in base 10. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The material about how binary was viewed in 1818 is interesting, but I see no explanation for the multiple personal attacks, and until this post there is nothing but a good history between the two of us.  For those with further interest in the concept of using base 10 to notate other number bases, our Wikipedia article Positional notation#Sexagesimal system shows that every post on this page includes such a notation.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "multiple personal attacks"? What on Earth are you on about? Uncle G (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore if new information becomes available then thats a good reason to overturn the correctly closed AFD. Unscintillating has now found a few references. The Natural Area Code system does have a fair few references [2], [3] (although they dont explicitly mention the base 30 nature of the code).--Salix (talk): 08:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• restore (original keep). The AfD seemed to hinge largely on the claim that base 27 was obscure but had one recorded use, whilst base 30 had none. Natural Area Code seems to show a use of base 30. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Natural Area Code is itself completely unreferenced, and does not describe a system for representing numbers (it represents geographic positions, not quite the same thing). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are you claiming here? That Natural Area Code doesn't exist (not only that it's not WP:N but that there's simply no such thing), or that Natural Area Code doesn't use base 30? Otherwise it would seem that your hypothesis is to use WP's arcane referencing policies based on the current state of a single article as a means to disprove reality. Whilst perennially popular hereabouts, that's still not a credible rational argument. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm claiming that from all current evidence NAC has only marginal notability, certainly not enough to support a WP:INHERITED-based claim of notability for base 30. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The7stars (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Disagreeing with the close, I discussed it with the closing admin here. We couldn't come to an agreement, which is why I am now listing this for DRV.

In short, I do not feel that the arguments within the discussion should lead to a delete result. A no consensus result would make sense, but certainly not a delete one. The first two voters in the discussion, even after their affirmations of their votes, did not return to comment on the finished product of the article, after I had improved it even further than the point where I had informed them, adding a history section and a number of references. Not to mention that their arguments (WP:GNG) are not backed by further explanation. Simply saying GNG isn't appropriate, because after my expansion, GNG certainly appeared to be met and they didn't expand their arguments to explain why it wouldn't have been met.

My improvement of the article changed Cindy's vote and the two delete votes referring to subscription websites are both incorrect (the sources were not majority subscription articles) and also unimportant, as we allow subscription sources per WP:PAYWALL. So I didn't then and still don't understand what their argument was and neither of their votes should be weighted at all.

Other than DGG's neutral uncertain vote, that leaves just two (three if you count the nominator) unsubstantiated votes of delete per GNG and four keep votes that say it meet GNG (with me expanding the article to show this fact.)

Therefore, I do not believe closing the discussion as delete was appropriate, nor do I feel like it appropriately weighted the arguments. Silverseren^C 02:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin The people initially supporting deletion returned after Silver's edits to reiterate their support for deletion. Theopolisme, Theroadislong, Anthony Bradbury, Bwilkins and MaxSem all restated that they felt it should be deleted based on the GNG and weak sourcing. Their opinions, while Silver may disagree with them, are not plainly wrong and represent a consensus when read with the other comments. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you look at the dates you'll see they returned to comment before this expansion and never commented on the added History expansion with its further sources. Furthermore, I just went back to check and Anthony Bradbury and MaxSem never once said anything about GNG. Their entire vote and further comments in the AfD were about the inexplicable subscription websites. Are you attributing an argument to them that they didn't make? Silverseren^C 03:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, for the people who did vote GNG, they did not back up their argument. Saying "Fails GNG" after sources were added is not an argument without expansion of the comment. And, again, they never commented on the further sources I added. Silverseren^C 03:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A closing admin cannot evaluate the sources added to see if they were sufficient. They also failed to return despite a relisting, which is generally taken to mean their opinion did not change based on subsequent edits. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I said GNG and weak sourcing, which I meant to include the paywall. I did not attribute the GNG argument to any specific person in explaining the close. MBisanz ^talk 03:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Paywall isn't an argument for or against GNG. It's a nonargument. And so their votes should be treated as such. Furthermore, what was the GNG argument? Saying "Fails GNG" isn't an argument if you don't back it up. How does it fail GNG, how are the sources not sufficient? Neither of them explained any of that, so how much weight can you really give that argument? Silverseren^C 03:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus - about equal headcount, sources that could plausibly be taken either way with respect to whether or not they're sufficient for WP:N - that's exactly why we have an outcome of no consensus. WilyD 10:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Straightforward AFD decision, and a passing glance at the headlines of the allegedly sufficient sources makes it clear that no, they fall far short of the mark as evidence for general notability, being 1) trade press; and 2) routine industry announcements. --Calton | Talk 04:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you explain how exactly the AfD decision was straightforward (without giving your opinion on the sources, because that isn't the point of DRV)? Silverseren^C 07:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - An AfD closure is ultimately a judgement call, the closer evaluates the arguments and decides accordingly. In this case, the calls to delete based on weakness of the sourcing overcame the opinion to keep, simple as that. If no error or nefarious misdeed can be found in the closer's rationale, there is no merit to a DRV filing. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As stated above by MBisanz, he appears to have extended the GNG argument to two users, Anthony Bradbury, and Max Semenik, who never made that argument at all. You can't weight people in favor of arguments when they never said they were in favor of them in the first place. Silverseren^C 05:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not quite sure how you get "he appears to have extended the GNG argument to two users, Anthony Bradbury, and Max Semenik, who never made that argument at all" from "I did not attribute the GNG argument to any specific person in explaining the close" but it's your opinion. MBisanz ^talk 12:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Because you stated this above: "Theopolisme, Theroadislong, Anthony Bradbury, Bwilkins and MaxSem all restated that they felt it should be deleted based on the GNG and weak sourcing." This statement is clearly not true. The two editors never made the statement in the first place. Silverseren^C 02:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]