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 Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW. But if anyone tries to create Complete list of prime numbers be sure to warn us. Newyorkbrad 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime numbers[edit]

List of prime numbers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I fail to see the reason why we need a huge list of prime numbers. Totally unencyclopedic. The first few primes of each type are already listed in the relevant articles, and a huge list like this one is unnecessary. —METS501 (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. I like having this list of the prime types. I think this is an excellent organizational tool, and I find it very encyclopedic. I wouldn't mind the removal of some of the primes under each type, since they are available on each type's article. Doctormatt 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems very much like an indiscriminate collection of information to me. —METS501 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I lean towards keep. The collection is not indiscriminant. It is sorted according to the various types of primes, so I side with Doctormatt on this one. I'm neutral about eliminating the lists under each type. It might possibly be useful for cross-referencing, or something like that. Silly rabbit 20:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Presumably you meant "indiscriminate". Michael Hardy 23:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Weak keep I would not call it "indiscriminate" because IT HAS TO BE PRIME to be on the list. It bothers me a little that, while I know primes are a valid subject in math, there are no references in this article to sources satisfying WP:A and likewise there are no sources in most of the articles about various quaint types of primes classified according to cute terminology someone dreamed up one day in school. Some of the subclassifications could be put up for AFD if they are O.R. rather than the product of scholarly analysis by mathematicians, computer scientists or cryptographers. References tend to be to other Wikipedia articles or to some website like Planetmath.org, which apparently anyone can edit anonymously, likw Wikipedia, hence not a reliable source. Prime numbers in general are obviously notable (hey, more than 1 million Google hits, mentioned in every low level math book) so it seems appropriate and encyclopedic to list some examples. Edison 20:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the Rabbit Jheald 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but maybe rename. "List of prime numbers" really applies only to the first section (and that section is not particularly encyclopedic). A more accurate name might be list of kinds of prime number or list of properties of prime numbers. Anyway we don't have to decide that in this discussion. --Trovatore 20:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per rabbit, good cross-referencing list for the prime related article. The initial 1000 primes is the only thing that seems indiscriminate to me.--Cronholm144 20:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For previous deletion discussion, see Talk:List of prime numbers. I expect the lists can be sourced to OEIS (but should probably go, with sourcing, on the separate articles for each type of prime instead of here). There's a difference between those entries of the form "primes in sequence X" (with no significant mathematical study relating to the intersection of the primes with that sequence, though "primes" and "sequence X" are individually notable) and those entries where there has been actual study of primes with the given property or of the given form. (OEIS now discourages submission of the former because it's too easy for people to make up such definitions, but there are an awful lot already in the database that wouldn't be notable here.) I think there are enough notable entries which have been genuinely studied to make a worthwhile list (possibly renamed to list of prime number topics or similar to reflect that it's a list of important types of primes rather than just a list of primes). Joseph Myers 21:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As Doctormatt explained, excellent organizational tool. Contains summaries of definitions, and links to articles on many types of primes. If there is anything unencyclopedic about it, it's the criteria for listing so many primes of each type , but clearly, it could not be a reason for deleting the article! The first section may be moved out to a separate article. Arcfrk 21:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, I don't think the first section should be split out; I'd rather delete the first section from the article. WP articles are not supposed to be tables of numbers; those go at Wikibooks or somewhere. For each of the other sections, five or so examples should be sufficient as well (an exception might be if, say, only seven or so are known; then there might be a reasonable case for listing all seven). But this is all cleanup, not AfD. --Trovatore 21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just a quick glance for me was enough to see that this is utterly encyclopedic content, indeed much better than many lists on Wikipedia (which is not to say that it could not be improved!). Geometry guy 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was quite happy to click on this page and learn some stuff about primes I didn't know before. Very useful and, I think one could argue, encyclopedic as well. VectorPosse 21:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I might also mention that a change of title and some editing could help. If we called this "Types of primes" or something like that, and then listed some examples of each (rather than huge tables), that would perhaps change the way this debate is being framed. VectorPosse 22:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Gives a great overview of 72 types of primes we have articles or article sections about. All 72 are wikilinked. Sources belong in the linked articles and are usually there. Some of the prime lists could be shorter but that is easy to change and no reason to delete. The deletion discussion on Talk:List of prime numbers is from early 2004 where it was only one huge list of prime numbers with no types. PrimeHunter 23:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Move and refocus, wikipedia is not for reference data, such as mere lists of numbers, but should instead describe what these types of primes are, instead of merely listing them. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This seems to be a clear case for a quick closure (speedy keep or withdrawal of nomination?). Lets not waste more time on this one! Geometry guy 23:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, perhaps reorganize The page presents a superficial appearance of just being a bunch of numerical tables; that seems to be why it got nominated for deletion. It should be reorganized so that it superficially looks like what it really is. Michael Hardy 23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:SNOWBALL is probably appropriate. There are some even some notable prime numbers missing from this article (like the largest discovered one that you'll find in the latest Guinness Book of Records or whatever)

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.