Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Approximation for Mathematical constants

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. Rlendog (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approximation for Mathematical constants

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

This article does not have any point because all of the articles that it is expanding on already have approximations listed on the page itself. Toasty (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I second Toasty's comment, this article does not have any significant point. tausif(talk) 15:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting ... but is that enough? Bearian (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't examined the articles of each of the numbers this one approximates, but if it really is as redundant as you say, then you might be able to speedy delete it with criterion A10. CtP (t • c) 21:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 21:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please: One should not simply _vote_ on these AfD pages. One should present one's arguments. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete arbitrary sig(nificant)dig(its) approximationCurb Chain (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every of the numbers included has its own article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mere tabulation is.....well OK, "tabulation" is not in all cases "mere". But maybe _this_ instance of tabulation is "mere" tabulation. I think "mere" (as opposed to other kinds of) tabulation has its place on the internet and maybe even within Wikipedia. But I have qualms about this article. It seems as if maybe a Wikipedia article should not be _only_ tabulation, and this one probably is. I think a good example of "tabulation" that is not _only_ tabulation, that deserves its place within Wikipedia, is a section of the article titled Initial-stress-derived noun. (Full disclosure: I created the initial draft of that article in about 2003 or 2004, or whenever it was.) I wonder if there's a place for an article with links to sections of other articles that have these long decimal expansions. Michael Hardy (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a format acceptable for Wikipedia, and does not actually present any encyclopedic content about approximation, despite its name. Maybe, this fits to Wikibooks? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant; approximations appear at the articles on these numbers. -- 202.124.73.158 (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this is even vuagely edifying. I don't see how to guarantee that these are in any way accurate. Most any arbitrary-precision software can print these out for you in a jiffy, and if you can do that, why is this article needed? That's what OEIS is for. linas (talk) 01:45, 20 August 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.