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. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Base 30 (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)

Repeating the rationale from my prod (removed without explanation by an anonymous editor): No references; tagged for notability for three years without improvement; no evidence that this has any significance either in human cultural history or in mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced, stubby article about a base that doesn't seem to be used much in the real world. The article should be deleted unless some notable uses of this base can be found. CodeTheorist (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or else there's a whole load of other related articles to erase too. Why should we keep Base 27 but not Base 30? If anyone has a solid reason to, then delete the lot - otherwise keep the lot. Picking at them one by one is not a productive effort. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a reason I chose this one: Base 27 has a claim that it has been used in at least one historic culture. This one doesn't. And anyway, see WP:WAX — this is a standard "argument to avoid in deletion discussions". —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:WAX /WP:OSE is also one of the least productive arguments for deletion.

A more useful question is this: Do we support articles on obscure or unused bases, with a discussion of their virtues, from a sense of arithmetic inclusionism? If we do that, then we keep the lot. If we don't, then 27 goes too. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is an important distinction between "obscure" and "unused" that separates this one from all the rest. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:N WP:RS. That said, if we start deleting every mathematical theory or system with no real-world use, the math category will get a bit lighter. Kerfuffler (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:I see no notability here. Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as it is probable that it will be completed later on. Eyreland (talk) 08:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Whether a numerical system is obscure or even unused is totally irrelevant. This article is unsourced, with seemingly no immediately available sources to show notability. A mathematician with knowledge of the literature may be able to redeem this article easily, but notability is not established at this time. -- BenTels (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:MILL. We could create articles on base 0-(infinity-1), but that's silly. The article doesn't really assert anything notable about this base. Gigs (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no references. Has anyone studied this?--Salix (talk): 06:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No hint of notability; one table of original research. linas (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2012 (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.