Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small 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 delete. With only a small number of people arguing to keep, the outcome is obvious. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Small 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)

What a weird piece of original research, 100% unreferenced for sooooo many years. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, stamp out, obliterate. This is not a math term. Also delete the related, equally nonsensical, but much more elaborate Large numbers. Then possibly redirect to Names of small numbers and Names of large numbers, respectively? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nuke it from orbit. So much WP:OR. Something should be the redirect target; Law of small numbers is also an option. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What exactly and objectively makes a number "small"? I don't think this can be reasonably answered without violating WP:NPOV (or introducing even more WP:OR), and a page describing various opinions on small numbers would constitute a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. ComplexRational (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly and objectively makes a number "large"? StrayBolt (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A topic; which is impossible to be encyclopedic. Per all above.∯WBG^converse 16:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On the fence re Large numbers, but this one is a bit silly and a lot arbitrary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whilst Large number is clearly legit and has a lot of pageviews, I find no sources to indicate this is a notable term, nor any appropriate target to redirect it to. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The usage of "small numbers" is debatable and definition subject to abuse[1], there are several classes that arise, like for large numbers. First come from small number statistics or Strong Law of Small Numbers which place it in the positive integers from 1 to 100, countable from the human sense. The second set would be from science and technology, numbers with negative powers of 10 exponents, from -1 to -100. Third is the mathematical theory realm with (ε, δ)-definition of limit and infinitesimals. StrayBolt (talk) 00:51, 31 January 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.