Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/50110 (number)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Re: 50110 (number)

Mmm, what can I say? It's a bit obscure isn't it? "the number of words in the story Gadsby." Isn't Gadsby a better place for this sole fact, if it's even the slightest bit useful? Please delete—Rory ☺ 00:16, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

  • Delete: Umm, yes, and 6 was the number of The Prisoner, until we found out in the last episode that #6 was #1 and had our minds blown by the Kafkaesque turn (and the dancing dwarf). Geogre 02:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless it's more notable in hex or octal. :p Antandrus 05:00, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have been to the Numbers Hall of Fame and it is not up there with the big boys, it's just another collection of digits.--Ianb 08:06, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nobody would miss it if were deleted, but it's harmless, presumably true, and Wikipedia Is Not Paper. -- Bonalaw 11:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • The only time I've ever heard anyone pose that argument is as a justification for keeping articles that would be deemed useless otherwise. It's the battle cry of the Inclusionists, the Wikipedian equivalent to shrugging one's shoulders and mumbling "eh, why not." Sure, Wiki is not paper, but the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we are entitled to standards, aren't we? (Not voting here, just expressing my opinion.) --Ardonik.talk() 20:45, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
      • Actually, "eh, why not?" is pretty much my position on this. I would change my vote to "neutral", except that the article fits into WikiProject Numbers, which to my freakish mind just tips the balance in its favour. --Bonalaw 13:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with Bonalaw. --Farside 16:51, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wouldn't move it to Gadsby either -- counting words in a long text is problematic, and there's nothing in 50110 (number) to back up the claim that 50,110 is precisely the number of words in Gadsby. The Gadsby text [1] says only that it's "A Story of Over 50,000 Words". Wile E. Heresiarch 17:30, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete if its only reason for inclusion is because it's the number of words in Gadsby. Is that significant? Are we going to have the number of words in every book that's ever been written? As far as I know the only reason Gadsby is even noteworthy at all is because it doesn't contain the letter "e" (if I remmeber correctly). However, inclusion as a number in its own right may be a different matter. I don't know what the guidelines are for having such number pages, but I imagine once you get into the thousands they are probably pretty rare. The included chart could be somewhat useful, I suppose, though exactly how doesn't spring to mind; I don't know how much call there is for random large number translated into binary and hexidecimal. My feeling is that a number needs to be somewhat significant to warrant it's own page, and I don't think this one passes. -R. fiend 17:56, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I really don't know, but I vote for a re-direct to 10000 (number). 66.245.109.207 17:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. If this has any importance, it can be mentioned in the Gatsby article. Andris 18:27, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't paper - servers and hard drives don't grow on trees. This article doesn't suggest any note. Average Earthman 22:25, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, numbers are encyclopedic. -- Crevaner 22:34, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing to indicate the number is notable. SWAdair | Talk 23:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Follow-up: I'm not convinced that the article is even accurate. I've attempted to count the words in Gadsby (yes, I guess must be pretty bored). The author uses a lot of compound words and word fragments. Consider these: uh-huh, chow-dish, drum-sticks, grub-lay-out, a-bustin, Good-night. How many words is that? How about these constructions: Coun-, a-a-a-crittur, M-i-s-s for Missouri, Try M-o, why-not-do-it-now, Lady S. You only have to count one differently and the total is no longer 50,110. As to the origin of that magic number, 50110 (number) has no reference. Google turns up a number of hits for Gadsby 50110 but none of those web pages cite a reference, so far as I can tell. As for myself, I downloaded the 43 chapters from [2], formatted it as plain text using Lynx, and stripped out the inter-chapter links and some non-text strings such as punctuation not adjacent to a word. Now wc says there are 50,289 words, so 50,110 is clearly in the ballpark, but I don't have much confidence that the number is truly 50,110. More likely, it seems, it's just a number an editor pulled out of his hat, and everyone has simply repeated it. Naturally if anyone has some evidence I'll be interested to see it. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:56, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree, but it's still irrelevant. If the novel "Ouch, My Foot" by W.P.Z.D. Blurgenspieler has 89,463 words is that in ANY way significant? Will ANYONE care? If 50110 is to be kept it has to be because it's relevant in its own right. I don't happen to think it is. The only argument for keeping it is Crevaner's comment "numbers are encyclopedic". I suppose that's true, but is every number encyclopedic? If so that's an awful lot of articles. Numbers are infinite. -R. fiend 05:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Regardless of usefulness, there's no proof this is actually true. Pyrop 03:01, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep, if only because there's lots of other numbers pages out there, with varying amounts of practical content (vs. trivia). And maybe Gray, Iowa (zip code 50110) deserves a mention on it as well. - KeithTyler 04:32, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
  • delete Now this is just plain silly. Someone couldn't think of any better entry and came up with a number. KeyStroke
  • Delete, a) for good reasons stated by Wile E. Heresiarch and R. fiend, and b) because it's utterly irrelevant to Gadsby. The interesting thing about Gadsby is that it's a very long and quite skilfully executed lipogram. It wouldn't even be an interesting one-sentence addition to the article on Gadsby. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:41, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep! --Lst27 00:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete per Wile E. Heresiarch's findings. Rossami 12:48, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to numberpedia and delete. anthony (see warning) 22:23, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Heh, heh. If we're going to have a Numberpedia, it should have a sister project called "TriviaPedia." But then VfD would become eerily quiet. --Ardonik.talk()
  • Delete - this number thing is outta hand - Tεxτurε 00:06, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Del. Since the concept "number of words" is so ill-defined, the statement is inherant unverifiable. --Jerzy(t) 03:20, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
  • Delete—Listing every number known to humankind is not an important contribution to this encyclopaedia. The fact that it is the number of words in a novel, no matter how famous, does not make it qualify for inclusion. •→Iñgólemo←• 03:34, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/50110_(number)&oldid=1137525315"