Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Square root of 10

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Square root of 10 (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)

Declined PROD (not originally by me). But I agree that this isn't a sufficiently interesting number to have an article for. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Irrational numbers would seem not to favor this. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. See Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Notability of specific individual numbers. This number has no special significance in mathematics, and no special properties distinct from other composite square roots. Its only cultural significance is (if one believes what is written in this article) as a bad and unsourced approximation to π, much worse than some of the ancient approximations described in Approximations of π and not even mentioned among the many many approximations described in that article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have heard the bit about it being an ancient approximation to π, and as far as π lore goes it can probably be sourced, but that's not enough to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• This content would not be much use in writing about where and by whom the hemibel is used. Uncle G (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've also read about its use in approximating π, but as it's currently unsourced, there is no need for a merger. This one property alone doesn't seem enough for an article; I'm also not aware of any major formulas where this number appears. ComplexRational (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we do not need to have articles on square roots of individual numbers. Vorbee (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Quadratic integer #Square root of integers. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Now Square_root#Square_roots_of_positive_integers to avoid deletionst paroxysms in Quadratic integer. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above, unless this could be merged with something related. Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Grapefruit17: see above – the target went missing due to edit warring; it was not my fault. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. FWIW, I find this number to be very interesting, but it's clearly not notable. Our readers could find the value faster on a calculator than searching for it here. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia does not need entire articles for specific numbers, unless those numbers are somehow significant. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 13:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe move the content to either a list of square roots or a list of approximations of pi, but only if sourcing can be found. I think a similar test for irrational numbers to the one for integers in Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) should be devised. At least the "3 interesting, unrelated properties" should be applied. Rockphed (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • list of square roots is now only a redirect. And before it was a redirect, it was simply a list of a few articles about square roots. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It can have the structure of other similar articles like square root of five with proof of irrationality, continued fraction expansion, geometric, trigonometric and even logarithmic aspects and identities, etc.--185.53.199.210 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2019 (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.