Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanic prime

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 merge to Megaprime. Daniel (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic prime

[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)

There was a general sentiment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigantic prime that if the outcome was that we no longer have the page, then we should look at this page. That AfD was closed as Redirect to Megaprime. My preference is not to keep, but for an alternative to deletion.— Charles Stewart (talk) 05:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that this article was the object of a contested PROD. — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 May 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Megaprime in a first step, then, in a second step, merge these two articles with Largest prime number for forming an article Large prime numbers. Redirects must be kept, as all these names are plausible search terms. But there is no encyclopedic interest for having articles for specific ranges of primes. Names such as "titanic prime" were coined for emphasizing the range in which the large primes were searched at the time of coining the the term. So these terms have now lost their mathematical interest. On the other hand, the search of large primes keeps its interest, even if, with algorithmic and hardware progresses, the size of what is called a "large prime" increases significantly. D.Lazard (talk) 08:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per D.Lazard. --JBL (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per D.Lazard and JayBeeEll.--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per D.Lazard and JayBeeEll and above. Patriot0239 (talk) 07:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think D.Lazard's proposal might work out well, I agree with the point about ranges of primes with mathematically arbitrary cutoffs, and if the energy is there to realise it, I support something along the lines of step two. I note that the proposal is so far fairly vague, and it might be beneficial to talk about what to do with all this material at Talk:Largest known prime number#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titanic prime and the large prime number article proposal. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Megaprime as per D.Lazard's first step. I further interpret the specific agreement above with D.Lazard's !vote as support for getting things moving on the proposed second step. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2021 (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.