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 of the debate was speedy keep. The nomination was clearly disruption of Wikipedia to make a point on the mailing list. The point is adequately made, and this article has no chance of actually being deleted. Let's end this absurdity. — Phil Welch (t) (c) 20:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Keep, per consensus. I count at this point 31 keep/strong keep/speedy keep vs either 1 or 2 to delete , or a 94-97%. Further debate would be thoroughly pointless, though I suppose techinically it could go to DRV if anyone really feels differently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unencyclopedic. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of facts, which also means that it is not a repository for proofs of arbitrary nuggets of mathematical fact. This is an obvious deletion candidate to even an inclusionist like me, at best it can be transwikied to WikiBooks if they want it. Loom91 08:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, very useful information, written encyclopedically. This article can be used as a resource when trying to explain the issue to people who still think 0.999... is less than 1. JIP | Talk 09:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This article is not an "arbitary nugget of mathematical fact", it directly addresses a common misconception held by many people. Wikipedia should strive to provide the public with accurate information and abolish such misconceptions - and this is what this article is for. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 09:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not hear to clear the misconceptions of the public. It is an encyclopedia, not doubt-clearing classes at the college. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This nomination completely ignores the WikiProject Mathematics history of supporting proofs both in articles and as articles. I suggest the nominator be better informed about both Wikipedia and mathematics before making further questionable claims. Mathematicians regularly use proofs for both education and communication. This particular article appears to be the best coverage of the topic — a perennial question — anywhere on the Web, hardly a candidate for deletion. --KSmrq^T 10:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could write an article on myself that will be the best in the web. That doesn't mean it should be in the WP. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; from Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1:

There are at least ten other proof articles currently on Wikipedia; see Category:Proofs, List of mathematical proofs, and Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1#Title. Of these, only one has undergone AfD:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proof that 22 over 7 exceeds π.

A couple of people wanted to transwiki or merge, and a couple thought that such a numerical comparison was undeserving of proof, but the clear consensus was to keep. Some went out of their way to point out that the article does not violate WP:NOT, among other policies.

And that is, in fact, the only AfD on record of its kind. Searching VfD instead, we find only Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Proof that 1 = 2, which was not a proof at all, and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Proof that 0.999... equals 1, which never happened.

As for the merits of this particular article and its subject, I endorse the above keep votes. Melchoir 10:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is agreed that the existence of other similar articles is not a valid ground to oppose deletion. For example, the existence of non-notable articles is not a ground to oppose the deletion of non-notable articles. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course not; that's why I explicitly endorsed other voters. But your claim that Wikipedia does not contain proof articles was wrong, and I felt it required disproof. There is no point in nitpicking everyone's imprecise logic on this AfD if you're not going to address the underlying consensus that the topic is notable and the article is encyclopedic. That it is also popular and educational is icing on the cake. Melchoir 13:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Not an arbitrary fact, but an important feature of decimal expansions which is sometimes misunderstood. Article is definitely encyclopedic, well written and comprehensive. Gandalf61 10:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-encylopedic. I'm thinking that it could be greatly shortened, and made into a section of the 1(number) article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steveo2 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep While I find it wholly baffling that there are people who care about 0.999... being equal to 1 or not, it's clear that those people do exist. While I find it to be surpremely uninteresting, that doesn't make it unencyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This is one of the most visited math articles on Wikipedia and definitely belongs in the encyclopedia. —Mets501^talk 11:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being visited does not make an article encyclopedic. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mets501. DarthVader 11:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and let's try to stop making silly AfDs. -lethe ^{talk +} 11:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is not silly at all and I will appreciate if you did not make personal attacks.
    • Maybe you should put a little more work into understanding policy and culture at wikipedia, then build a case and make a strong argument, rather than just making vague and unsupported assertions that an important article is unencyclopedia. -lethe ^{talk +} 13:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I find it bizarre that someone would want to remove such an article from an encyclopaedia. It comprehensively explains one of the important aspects of mathematics in simple language. Markb 11:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per above. I think concensus to keep has been established. --Salix alba (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Meni and Mets --Deville (Talk) 12:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible Keep vote, as per all the many wonderful people above. This article also provides a useful insomnia cure for non-mathematicians. Vizjim 12:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not and should never be a cure for insomnia. Statutory warning: taking medication without prescription can be dangorous. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- this is an important and surprisingly subtle mathematical topic, bringing together infinities, infinitesimals, limits, and the nature of the real number line. -- The Anome 12:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per above. Moreover, the fact that 0,(9) is not approximately, but exactly equal to 1 is probably one of the few math facts interesting even to people who normaly don't care much about math. AdamSmithee 12:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From when has "interesting" been the criteria for inclusion? Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We call it "notability"; but it has always been a criterion - not the only one, of course. Keep Septentrionalis 19:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. We have dozens of articles about mathematical proofs, this is the most understandable and most popularly referenced one I've seen of them.
• Keep as part of "the sum of all human knowledge" we want to collect. - Liberatore(T) 12:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is nearly universally agreed that we do NOT want to collect the sum of all human knowledge, only the subset that is encyclopedic and notable. Loom91 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I rephrease: this is a part of "...", and is a part we want to collect. But I would be more specific on this: Wikipedia should cover all mathemtatics (and the other sciences, of course), and this is part of mathematics. - Liberatore(T) 13:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per KSmrq and others above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per KSmrq --Rayc 13:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Wikiversity. --JWSchmidt 13:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. How is this unencyclopaedic?! Batmanand | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the above reasons. - DavidWBrooks 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Blatant POINT violation per WikiEN-l post; speedy keep - David Gerard 13:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is posible that User:Loom91 really does want this article deleted.Geni 15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible that the sun might rise shortly after I have my supper this evening, but I won't be holding my breath: given that this AfD was raised shortly after you yourself mentioned that very article the connection is reasonably clear. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• comment It could be made more encyopedia by adding some reference to why the proof is significant and any particaly noteable arguments it has caused (Eg when was this first deabted on usernet or something).Geni 15:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and delete, then expand other articles. Our coverage of this issue is upside-down. The "Generalizations" section contains the truly important fact (used in Cantor's diagonal argument among other things). We should cover the fact that some real numbers have two decimal representations, and that all real numbers have exactly one infinite decimal representation that does not end in repeating 0 digits - and that this is true for all bases, not just base 10. (we already cover this to some degree in Decimal representation) I wouldn't be opposed to an article proving the more general statement. However, the specific example in this article, that in base 10, the number 1.000... can also be represented as 0.999..., is not encyclopedic. This is indeed a good article which should be kept on another Wikimedia project, but not here. We have an article on Long division, not on 192 divided by 4 equals 48. Same principle applies here. flowersofnight (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This topic is not just any specific example; it is infamous. I am confident that even after this AfD is archived as a keep, if 192/4=48 shows up on AfD it will not receive the same defense. Melchoir 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as there are several other proof articles on Wikipedia. Article could stand to be renamed though. Is also badly in need of rewrite; about halfway through the article I found myself wondering why I should care whether or not 0.999 = 1.--Isotope23 15:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)..[reply]

It is one of the standard arguments that turn up on a lot of forums along with things such as the Monty Hall problem.Geni 16:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be fantastic to know in the article for context about this proof and why it has any relevance or importance (and I know I'm preaching to the choir based on your comments above).--Isotope23 16:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is finding a source. I can show you multipage threads[1] but they are not really a valid source.Geni 16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ironicaly thr closest I can get to solid source is an april fools joke[2].Geni 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking for reputable, published literature on common misconceptions over 0.999..., there is at least one author who's written on the subject. See Talk:Proof that 0.999... equals 1/Archive02#If I may speak to the article itself... and this journal article. Melchoir 19:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but the title isn't the best. A possible new title is "Multiple decimal representations". – b_jonas 15:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: blatant POINTmaking as per David Gerard with a side-order of BEANstuffing. —Phil | Talk 16:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I'm just slightly worried about including proofs that may get more trivial. TheProject 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not clear as to what exactly is being alleged to be unencyclopedic about this article. Is it because the subject matter is more abstract than most articles? --Trystan 17:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just the opposite, it's not abstract enough. flowersofnight (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the article is clear, is documented and referenced. -- ReyBrujo 17:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm very surprised that this was nominated for deletion. Paul August ☎ 18:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep obviously notable, nominated in violation of WP:POINT ➥the Epopt 19:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the advertisement of this AfD on the Pump has backfired. I would, however, support creating a Wikibook dedicated to proofs of this type, but even if one existed, I think it's still a worthy article. --Golbez 19:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: was one of the first articles I saw on WP and it's what got me hooked, that cool articles that explain obscure things that some people are very interested in, can be written and accecible by and to anyone. This article is encyclopedic, and does not fall under indiscriminate collection of facts, but rather explains the concept of 0.999~~ going equaling 1, just as Godwin's law states the concept that the probability of hitler being mentioned in a debate over time equals one. Same deal. Chuck 20:09, 5 May 2006 (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.