Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(viii)


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

(viii)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Was PROD'ed and endorsed by 3 editors, but DEPROD'ed by creator without explanation. We do not have articles on individual Roman Numerals as they are not considered to be particularly noteworthy on their own. There is no viable content to merge and the article title is not a suitable redirect.

As per the PROD rationale, This is a dictionary definition, which Wikipedia is not, supplemented with a piece of trivia from a predatory journal. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per my original PROD rationale and endorsement comments. Also noting that Wiktionary and a predatory journal cannot be used to satisfy verifiability requirements. Complex / Rational  11:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - As someone mentioned in the talk page, a delete is more appropriate than a redirect because it's an unconventional title that is unlikely to be used. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Wait, what? Why does this exist? XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Individual roman numerals are not suitable topics for an encyclopedia, and the title is not a plausible search term. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect It's the number 8, and nobody would use this as a redirect.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 21:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete, or not opposed to a cheap redirect to the number eight as I'm sure it wouldn't cause any harm. — VersaceSpace  🌃 04:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete not a plausible target to be a redirect, we already have VIII as a redirect which would be the better place for this if it needed an article. If there is new information about the styling of Roman numerals - it can be added there. Per above that there is nothing otherwise noteworthy about writing 8 as a roman numeral. — xaosflux  Talk 10:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Provides no substantive content, and would be equally useless as a redirect. -- Kinu t/c 17:35, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Redundant to 8 (number), and is an implausible redirect due to the parenthesization. Merging is not useful either since there is very little content on this page. It is barely more than a WP:DICDEF. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:91D8:B29C:76C9:CBB (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)