Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1234 (number)

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 keep‎. The nomination, as well as some of the Delete !votes, relied on the complete absence of sources the article suffered from when nominated. Those participants had ample opportunity to come back and address the plethora of sources presented and added to the greatly-expanded article since then, but most chose not to, prompting me to discount their view. Of the views based on the current state of the article vis à vis WP:NUMBER, there is a rough consensus to keep the page. Owen× ☎ 17:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1234 (number)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a rather unremarkable number. Lacks notability. Fram (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom; other than "the digits are in order" there is nothing interesting about the number. Recently created. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of the additions are from OEIS and are of dubious importance. But it is "good enough"; I don't want to put in further effort assessing whether this should be kept. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's trivial. Athel cb (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have added some sourced properties, not all of which are "the digits are in order". The article is now significantly expanded from its nominated sub-stub version, which didn't even say that much. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I need more numbers in Wikipedia because Wikipedia is helpful also, I made this page because I need more numbers in Wikipedia, so don’t delete it. It is a good page. Highway Helper (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)striking comment by cu-confirmed sock. Technically this could be deleted as created in violation of a block or ban, but as others have now commented about keeping it I suppose we should hold off. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Enthusiastic editors are a great thing to have. However, before you create any more pages, you might want to carefully read WP:GNG, which talks about when a topic is sufficiently important to have its own page. PianoDan (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. PianoDan (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am adding more sourced properties as well. Radlrb (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evaluating this number by the relevant guideline, the big question is Are there at least three unrelated interesting mathematical properties of this integer? I think we can lump together all of its appearances in various lists made by concatenating numerals ("triangle of the gods", the $a(n)=10a(n-1)+n$ sequence, and the Yates-order thing). Then we've got the counting of independent vertex sets, which is in the OEIS as both "nice" and "hard". We could also include this along with that and maybe mention this as well. The "finite Sturmian words" sequence is also "nice", though what it's actually counting seems harder to explain... The rest of what's currently in the page can be summarized, I think, by saying, "1234 is also the answer to various partitioning problems, such as" and giving a few examples. Counting rooted trees of a fixed height and digits in Fermat numbers could also be included. Overall, I think this one is salvageable, somewhat to my surprise. XOR'easter (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partitions are tricky, mainly because all small enough numbers will be some partition values of different integers in many ways, so at least two coinciding values in different enough ways (or similar too), makes pairs of integer partitions or more worthwhile to mention (here we have two for 44 and two for 24, for example). Else partition values obtained that are factors of each other is another order of interest, especially if the partitions are defined in similar ways... and so forth. Actual uses of select partitions become most notable, of course. We can remove some from here (like those in the note). Radlrb (talk) 05:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I think you are misinterpreting the guideline (it isn't the clearest in this regard). For a number to be considered notable, it needs to meet all three bullet points, not just one of them. Above, there are similar lists for "kinds" and "sequences" of numbers, and there it is explicitly noted that we need an "affirmative" answer to the questions, not just to one of them. You can also see in the "Disposition of examples" for the numbers, that the example meets all three questions and thus is notable. For 1234, so far only meeting question 1 has been demonstrated, positive answers to question 2 and 3 are missing, and this means that it doesn't meet the guideline and isn't notable. Fram (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I said "the big question". Question 2 is the most subjective, and in this case is arguably met because the number in question is, well, "one two three four". It's the ATM PIN for people who don't care about their ATM PIN, and all that. The answer to question 3 is yes; 1234 appears on Friedman's webpage (I haven't checked the other two, but it doesn't have to appear in all of them). XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Worth mentioning also, this article as it currently stands also satisfies guidelines found at WikiProject Numbers (aside from maybe, finding a good cultural point referenced, or otherwise). Radlrb (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly non-notable by any reasonable interpretation of the idea. Any number of this magnitude is likely to crop up in dozens, if not hundreds, or thousands, of OEIS entries. A laundry list of such appearances does not an encyclopedic subject make. I'd go so far as to say that numbers above 100 (and I'm being really generous by cutting off at 100) are not notable unless they have some overriding cultural significance or for some other special reason. "1234" does not fit into this, and indeed, even after attempts to flesh out the article, all we have is a list of numerical trivia. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero sense, and that will never happen anyways. It's not just about OEIS, and guidelines are clear in what is required to be included here as an article. For example, take 1024, or a small number such as 144, and you'll get very important properties arising. Radlrb (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may disagree with me, just as I disagree with you, but saying my reasoning makes "zero sense" makes zero sense. And I even said I'm open to exceptional cases, but this isn't one of them. And the guidelines on standalone notability for integers are, frankly, bullshit. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome you to make suggestions for better notability guidelines at the proper project pages, then. Note, that these have been "fleshed out" quite a bit. Radlrb (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found a published source for the frequent pin code usage. I'm not a big fan of crufty number articles, but I think the grid independent set property, the cultural usage as a pin code, and the appearance of this number in recreational mathematics works such as Pickover's are enough for this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PIN referenced is not really about the integer 1234, as its a string of digits for a code, and people usually would not think of "one thousand, two hundred and thirty-four" when putting this pin down, more so "one two three four". But, it can go either way, so I think it's somewhat admissible (if that's all that we can find culturaly, or in society, so to speak, for this article so far). Radlrb (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article is now greatly expanded and much better sourced than it was when nominated. A (re-)assessment of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable and insufficient coverage. S-Aura (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Followup comment. The relisting comment asked about source analysis. TL;DR -- there aren't any of any worth. The OEIS is fine for verifying basic facts (although it does have mistakes), but it's useless for trying to establish "notability" of a number, which is kind of a silly idea anyway. The Parker book is even more useless; it's a short offhand comment in which 1234 crops up, and it certainly doesn't go into any depth about the number; worse yet, it's just that it happens to be the first in a sequence which doesn't satisfy a particular property. Moreover, it's a base-10-specific property, which are always far less important anyway. And finally, as even Radlrb astutely pointed out, the PIN thing isn't about the number 1234, but merely the string of base-10 digits. The basic premise of GNG is "are there sources which discuss the topic in depth?", to which the answer is a pretty clear "no". 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The distinction between "the number 1234" and "the string of base-10 digits" is too fine a hair for me to split here. A property of a string of base-10 digits is a property of a base-10 representation of a number, and thus a property of that number. XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
💯 Radlrb (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And our number articles are full of facts that are more about numerals as strings than arithmetic statements about integers. For example, 66 (number) includes Messier 66 and Route 66, cases in which the numbers are semi-arbitrary identifiers; there's no meaning in adding or multiplying highway numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My position is that numbers-as-semi-arbitrary-identifiers belong on disambiguation pages, not on pages about numbers-as-numbers. But mathematical or cultural properties of strings of base-10 digits can stay on the number pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up. There are three nice sequences listed, and a cultural point that passes - limit I believe is at a four-digit code where people could use spelled out numbers rather than digit by digit (one, twelve, one hundred and twenty three, one thousand two hundred and thirty four; maybe not twelve-thousand three hundred and forty five, as the series becomes longer and wordier). These points collectively suffice for notability guidelines for number articles; in-depth coverage is not a requirement (though depth is given for various points). Radlrb (talk) 18:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG is king. If there aren't sources discussing a topic in depth, it's not notable. Notability isn't some checklist where something gets to tick off some boxes and it automatically gets an article. It's always case-by-case, and the tortured reasoning being employed here to try to save this one is ludicrous. You yourself even admitted that a PIN being "1234" is about the digits, and not the number represented by that string of digits. And even still, the obvious followup question is "so !@#$ing what?" Because "1234" is a common PIN it gets a Wikipedia article? Really? Has the world gone insane? I'm really in disbelief over the lunacy here. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it depends on how to dictate in-depth coverage (not source-wise I mean, OEIS and the books sourced are clearly notable, as with their respective authors). Expansion to the mention in binary is warranted, and I haven't gotten to that yet. While most number articles do need some work in this regard, a simple use or noteworthy point (i.e., 1234 is the first to not be divisible by the last digit, in its series) can have deeper meaning and substantiate the original point (in this example, four adjoining properties are coupled). The vertex sets point is also substantiated by a note. The partitions examples are important in giving mathematical value to the number 24, for example, or 44; the former is particularly a notable number, so value is given there and therefore is a worthwhile mention. The cultural example is perfectly fine, and I grew into appreciating it more after contemplating it further. Radlrb (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be the only person who immidiately thought of this. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The number is notable for being one of the most-common passwords, but I don't think it warrants an entire article about it 1234, SAD! and other great political passwords, New defence secretary’s YouTube account was hacked because password was as easy as ‘1234’, The damage done by Russia’s hack of Germany’s defence ministry, Archive of historic BT 'email' hack preserved. Svampesky (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the nominator has not given a rationale, so I will say here that WP:ILIKEIT. I really don't see what damage this does, to anyone, besides people who become angry re: the existence of a page on a website that they don't have to read. Also, per above, &c &c jp×g 🗯️ 11:14, 8 July 2024 (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.