Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Base 13

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the pages entitled Base 13 and Base 120.

This page is kept as an historic record.

Consensus to keep Base 13 was reached, and the article was kept.

Consensus on Base 120 was not reached, and the article was kept.

---

Discussing numeral systems with obscure bases. If one mentions at least one "real-life" use of these bases, then keep. Otherwise delete, for this may set precedent for an infinite number of articles, like with 2048 (number), already dealt here. Mikkalai 19:15, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

• Keep both. It seems unreasonable to go on a sweeping quest against these as we keep stubs like quinary and they are all referenced from numeral system. Especially Base 120 has some explanation and encyclopedic content. ?Ed Cormany 19:53, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
• Lean towards keep. Base 13 has been a requested article for some time, and I am reluctant to bite contributors that respond to red-links. Base 120 was not a requested article, but "great hundred", etc. is verifiable, and the article seems to have some interesting content. That said, the math needs a once-over, as I get different results for 120/17 and 120/7 (I didn't check others). I agree that IRL uses would greatly enhance the articles. (If these are deleted, someone should consider de-linking similarly obscure bases from Numeral systems.)Niteowlneils 21:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I tableized Base 120 and checked the math, it's all correct. I added table headers, so you can tell what he was trying to show. --Ben Brockert 01:06, May 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Wouldn't it be best to redirect these to a 'base-n' page which has general information about what a base is? The only obvious exceptions I can think of are bases 2, 10, 16, and 60. The 1st and 3rd are used heavily in computing, and our time system is based on base-60. Betelgeuse 21:55, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep both. 120 is harmless, and 6*9=42 in base 13, a fact that will be soon mentioned. --Ben Brockert 22:06, May 14, 2004 (UTC)
• I would have said delete to Base 13 if it hadn't been for Brockert's remark, which is of course true. That (although a coincedence according to DNA himself) is a wide-spread fact. So keep. No vote on Base 120. -- Jao 22:58, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
• Keep both, for the reasons stated above --Tagishsimon

VFD removed from base 13. Mikkalai 01:32, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. I also created an article for an alternate name, Tredecimal, as a re-direct. 66.32.132.150 01:33, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, OK. Relax. I withdrew, didn't you notice? Mikkalai 01:42, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

• Keep both. Base 13 is a great article although short, Base 120 needs some work IMO but a valid topic and already a good article. Yes, I did notice the withdrawal, but IMO the notices should stay unless this discussion is also closed by removing the link from VfD (and, I would suggest archiving the discussion in some way that can be easily reached from both article talk pages). Andrewa 16:56, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with the original sentiment, an article on a strange base system is only pertinent if there is discussion on the practical advantages and current uses of the system. For instance the article on golden mean base, or the article on base 2 (I'm assuming there is one, if not there should be). Anyway, keep 13, I'd like to see the encryption part expanded on, untill then it's marked as a stub. Delete 120, the article stems from its ability to represent fractions easly, that's true of an infinite number of other base systems. No mention of real world uses either. --Starx 04:15, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with Starx. Base 13 has some literary relevance. Base 120 has zero real-world applicability. Denni 21:00, 2004 May 18 (UTC)
• Delete 120. True of many other bases. No vote on 13.Andris 00:12, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

---