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. RL0919 (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Base 11 Numeral System (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)

Already stated in List of numeral systems. No need to merge because it's a stub. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:08, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this article is only two sentences long, and does not say much other than stating the obvious. It is badly written - "a addition" should be "an addition". Vorbee (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As this article is uncited and possibly WP:OR derived from duodecimal, there is no content suitable for merging. I cannot find many sources detailing the subject that may be used to expand this article (there really is only one aspect – the bit about the French Revolution – that has been covered, but is only two sentences that already exist in List of numeral systems), so I'd say it fails WP:GNG. Additionally, the title is rather wordy and thus not ideal for a redirect; undecimal and base 11 suffice for that. Hence, delete. ComplexRational (talk) 20:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I disagree with ComplexRational claim to OR, the topic of the article is already covered at the list of number systems. Still, there isn't substantial content worth merging here that isn't covered there, as Base 11 was never really notable in its own right, and a redirect would not work either. So in the end, it isn't that there are no sources or that original research is present, but that the topic is extremely insignificant and does not possess any coverage besides routine definitions. So delete. Utopes (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Utopes: The bit about using X (dek) as a digit for 10 is what struck me as OR, by the way. But I agree with this viewpoint as well. ComplexRational (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  [[1]]. Unreliable source from Quora. Apparently "X" was chosen as it was the Roman numeral for ten, which kind of makes sense, but the information is still not verifiable. However, it DID come from somewhere. Delete still stands. I can see why you would call it OR though, as a controversial claim without a citation. In all honesty, you were probably right. Utopes (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Utopes: @ComplexRational: Using Dwiggins X (dek) for the last undecimal digit was done by the Dozenal Society of America (link is to their site; it's a synopsis of multiplication tables for all bases between 2 and 60 inclusive), so it's not quite OR. OTOH, for bases 12 and above they use the author's self-created transdecimal numerals, the DSA has switched to Pitman numerals (in which digit-10 is an inverted 2, not an X-like shape), and the DSA is hardly advocating use of undecimal! Double sharp (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless base 11 was ever used on a significant scale -- which I highly doubt, given the practical issues -- there's no more reason to have an article about it than about base 13, base 17, or any other impractical numeral system. It's also worth noting that we don't have (or, IMO, need) an article for base 7, even though it's both a lower number and at least indirectly used for days of the week. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication that this merits more than a line in a table. XOR'easter (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think the same principles that apply to individual numbers in WP:NUMBER apply here. Does this base have multiple interesting properties distinguishing it, in its use as a base from other bases? No. Does it have any significant historical or cultural use? Not really, except as the punchline of a joke. The ISBN checksum has been claimed to be base-11, but it's not really — there's a calculation mod 11, but no use of 11 as an actual radix for base-11 notation. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Apart from the joke, AFAIK the only claims to notability for this base are two historical mistaken identifications of languages as base-11 (Pañgwa and Maori in 1922 and 1826(!) respectively, see this paper by Harald Hammarström on rarities in numeral systems), i.e. not much. Double sharp (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article is short, uncited, badly written and the subject has no more reason to have its own page than any other impractical numeral system. — Kstone999 (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Both Base 11 Numeral System and Base 11 numeral system would have to be deleted. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 18:01, 27 September 2019 (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.