Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24601 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 redirect to Les Misérables#24601. The subject deserves a mention in the main article, but probably not notable enough to stand on its own. Enough information is in the section; anything else is coincidental, trivial trivia. Sr13 05:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24601 (number)

24601 (number) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete - this is a thinly-disguised pop culture article, serving exactly the same "spot the reference" function as so many now-deleted "...in popular culture" articles served. It is a directory of loosely associated items which as a grouping tell us nothing about the number, Les Miserables, the fiction from which the trivial references are drawn, their relationship to each other or the real world. The number itself does not appear to be significant as a number per the guidelines laid out at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) or by the relevant Wikiproject. Otto4711 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Merge and redirect to Les Misérables#24601, from where it's presently linked. It doesn't seem to be large enough to actually need its own article, and if it did it shouldn't be this one, but rather Cultural references to Les Misérables or something like that, just like all the references to 42 are at The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy cultural references rather than at 42 (number). I don't see how a redirect would hurt, though, and it would have the benefit of being able to use the current material in the main article (as "merge and delete" isn't an option). -- Jao 14:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect as above. >Radiant< 14:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, because of multiple mainstream references in shows like South Park and Simpsons, but again, add sources. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sourcing is not the issue here. I accept without question that the number indeed appeared in every instance asserted in the article. The issue here, as noted in the nomination, is notability and WP:NOT. Otto4711 18:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The number appears to have a cultural significance. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Jao. Deor 19:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect I dont think we should start articles on notabilities of numbers. I think that would be too trivial Corpx 21:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect; the examples given in this list are of such minor importance to the works mentioned that they don't justify an enire article. Just a list of small "in-jokes". Masaruemoto 23:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Les Misérables#24601, per above. Will (talk) 23:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Norton and Roi. I never heard of the number, but this is one that's actually significant because of pop culture references, not in spite of. Besides being a code for Hugo's Les Miserables, it's the zip code for Amonate, Virginia whose name itself (MN8) is interestingMandsford 01:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. This is nothing more than a list of trivia. Resolute 04:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The use as a prisoner number is covered well enough by the paragraph in the Les Mis article, so, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, I suggest merging all non-trivial, non-prisoner-related properties to 10000 (number), along with a single statement along the lines of "Also a popular choice of prisoner number in fiction in reference to Les Misérables." The article can then be changed to a redirect to 10000 (number), as with any other such number. Confusing Manifestation 04:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Is thinly-disguised pop culture article a deletion criteria? It is arguably notable. ~ Infrangible 09:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP:NUM permits articles on numbers with significant cultural associations (see, for example 46664 (number)). Article establishes multiple cultural references. Gandalf61 11:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 46664 has actual real-world cultural significance as the prisoner number of a historically and culturally significant real person Nelson Mandela and later the title of a series of charity concerts. This number has cultural references that amount to a series of in-jokes; cultural references are not the same thing as cultural significance. Otto4711 12:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Cultural associations do not have to be links to "real world" events and people. WP:NUM has a section on numbers that appear in fiction. Articles on 42 (number) and 47 (number) have Pop Culture sections with diverse cultural references. Gandalf61 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • While those two numbers contain pop culture references, they are not made up entirely of pop culture references. That's the difference. Resolute 13:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I was countering Otto's claim that cultural associations in number articles have to refer to the real world. For other examples of number articles that consist entirely of cultural references, see 6236 (number), 6346 (number) and 144000 (number). Gandalf61 13:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That other such articles exist does not justify this article. My main point, which you haven't answered, is that a handful of passing references to the number as throwaway jokes in cartoon shows and the like do not add up to cultural significance. Otto4711 14:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Eight separate popular culture references plus a real world instance adds up to cultural significance as far as I am concerned. WP:NUM permits cultural references to fiction. WP:NUM does not prohibit number articles that consist mainly or solely of cultural references. That is my extended justification for keeping this article. I do not intend to engage in further debate on my position. Gandalf61 15:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You're certainly free not to continue to discuss your position but that doesn't mean I'm not going to continue to point out flaws in it. While WP:NUM certainly doesn't forbid pop culture references in number articles, it states that "In general, the number needs to be conspicuous and important to the story to be worth mentioning in the number articles." A number on a character's helmet or on a prison jumpsuit or a cell, seen in passing and AFAIK not commented on within the story, is not "conspicuous and important to the story." Maybe if Sideshow Bob had song a parody of a song from Les Miz while wearing his jumpsuit, but simply showing up on screen for a few moments? No. And the one supposed real life example is unreferenced original research. Otto4711 15:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As is apparently par for the course when you cite WP:NOT#PAPER, you're not seeming to understand that it is not a free pass for the article. The storage medium of Wikipedia does not mean that the articles on Wikipedia do not have to adhere to other policies and guidelines. Otto4711 12:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Matthew and others. It is indeed notable (although a few sources would be nice). nb: article fails to state that the number is always spoken digit-by-digit: 2-4-6-0-1 — as in the lyrics. --Jack Merridew 12:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep 24601 is a very significant number. It used to be Jean Valjean's prisoner number in Les Miserables, and is sung out in many performances. I could have sworn to see it used in some cartoons involving prisoners. Notable indeed.--Kylohk 15:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability has been established for 24601 above and beyond other numbers, cemented by the multiple cultural references. Alansohn 18:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Quoting from WP:N: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...."Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail...Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive. Can you, or anyone claiming that this number is notable, point to the reliable sources in which the appearance of the number on Skinner's helmet or Sideshow Bob's prison jumpsuit are addressed "directly in detail"? Otto4711 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Otto - you said above "Sourcing is not the issue here"; now you say that sourcing is an issue. Your deletion nomination uses Wikipedia:Notability (numbers) and WP:NUM as benchmarks of notability; now you cite WP:N. This deletion dsicussion would be less confusing if you could stick to one consistent set of arguments. Gandalf61 10:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • What I said above was that I don't question that each of the passing references noted in the article happened so adding a source that mentions the mention is not the issue. I have said from the start that notability is the issue and notability is established by the existence of reliable sources in which the subject is discussed directly in detail. That argument has certainly been consistent, and the failure to respond to it substantively has also been consistent. You seem like a bright enough fellow so your claim of being confused seems a little disingenuous. By the way, now that you're talking again, do you by any chance have any sources that discuss any of these passing mentions of the number directly in detail? Otto4711 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Merge or rename per Jao. This is certainly a meme, even if there is a flavor of WP:SYNTH about it; but it has nothing to do with the number as such. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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.