Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000000000 (number)

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 19:46, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

1000000000000000000 (number)

 * Delete. This article is a move of 1000000000000000000. That one was voted for deletion at Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000, and the result of the vote was either delete or redirect. As such, 1000000000000000000 (number) should not have been created as a copy of 1000000000000000000. Regardless of that, I doubt that this article has any chance into a developing into an encyclopedic article, so I suggest that it be deleted. Oleg Alexandrov 21:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. A number of similar articles have #redirect Orders of magnitude (numbers) . See what links there Rich Farmbrough 21:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is ridiculous. IMHO, the previous VfD had a consensus to delete, and this should probably be taken up with the closing editor, or the on WP:AN. -Splash 22:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I have asked Rich Farmbrough this very question. -Splash 23:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, my feeling was that the debate moved to bring out the policy that any article named by an integer was a year article, and it should, if not worthy of an article of it's own, redirect to the appropriate date type entity. Any article or redirect  about the number should be in the  XXXXXX (number) namespace.  Possibly I over read the sense of development of a position, compared with the numbers of votes.  If so I apologise.
 * My own thoughts differ from the result I interpreted anyway, I think this should also be a redirect, for the following reasons.
 * Redirects are cheap.
 * This is consistant with what has happened elsewhere.
 * There is little information for the number itself, and it is all in Orders of magnitude (numbers).
 * If these articles are totally deleted they will be perpetually recreated and deleted. It's more sense to have a redirect than a protected deleted page. Rich Farmbrough 00:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Question You closed the previous discusion saying it should be made into a redirect. Why didn't you made it? Nabla 00:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I did. It redirects to the article concerned with far-future dates 11th millennium and beyond.  I also added a note at the top of that article to simpify matters for users who wondered "what is the correct name for 1000000000000000000" and entered the digits into wikipedia.  This is still not a good solution, but probably less bad than what was there before.  Elsewhere I will be (re)raising the policy question of having large integers interpreted as dates.  For now, it's probably good to work with the policy. Rich Farmbrough 01:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I see... so its just a matter of interpretation. From the previous discussion I concluded that 1...0 should be moved to 1...0 (number) and this made into a redirect also. Nabla 13:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Because when he moved the article, it created a redirect, as occurs automatically? The article 1000000000000000000 is a redirect page. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I see. Since we are where we are, we may as well continue from here (since we're debating the same article again, in effect). Still, whilst there was the consensus you describe among the redirect votes, the consensus of the process was still to delete, imo. -Splash 00:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There were 12 votes to delete on the previous VFD, and five to redirect. Of the five to redirect, one was to redirect to Trillion, three to names of large numbers, and one was a redirect vote with no specification as to where. Seeing as a redirect is essentially a delete anyway - as nobody is voting to merge and maintain information - that's a unanymous delete vote. Far from a move vote. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I count 13 to delete. Hmmm. I'm wondering if I should just take this to WP:AN since the closer is evidently not around at the mo. This VfD shouldn't even be able to exist, really. -Splash 00:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Splash. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy redirect to... what? Names of large numbers?. A Vfd on this was recently closed with a result of move and replace with redirect. It was moved but no one made the redirect. Nabla 00:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete content covered in trillion. DavidH 00:30, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly one reason for the article/redirect existing is that it less ambigous than "trillion". I'm certain it will bceome at most a redirect. Rich Farmbrough 01:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * We must Delete! This article was created by Rich Farmbrough when he personally disagreed with the results of the VFD at Votes for deletion/1000000000000000000. We must stand by the results of the VFD, or admit VFD is meaningless. --A D Monroe III 01:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't personally disagree. I saw an old VfD that had't been closed, and dealt with it, in the same way it seems you had previously. Maybe I got it wrong, as I have said above. As I also said above, the actions I took were not those I would have chosen without the VfD.  These two articles/redirects are verging on the trivial - wikipedia is not consistant, and the VfD process doesn't stand or fall by one article alone. See WP:POINT  Moreover I encouraged Oleg to list this for VfD, and, had he not been so efficient (:-), I  would have suggested changing the article into a redirect along the lines of established practice for 1000... .000 (number). Rich Farmbrough 01:58, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I assumed "I think this should also be a redirect" was your reason for making it a redirect. I'm no admin, so I can't delete pages; I can only vote to delete, as I did then and now.  --A D Monroe III 04:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This is ludicrous.  Nandesuka 01:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. A redirect is harmless, prevents recreation and has the potential of driving traffic to the site from search engines. &mdash; David Remahl 03:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Covered elsewhere. &mdash; RJH 15:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This is silly. And we'll never use a number that big anyway. JDoorjam 19:55, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Every large power of 10 needn't be a redirect (there are infinite powers of 10, after all), and this seems like a happy place to draw the line. Xoloz 01:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete: I hate to be Sargeant Rock all the time, but I view this as an article that was deleted (by vote), whether anyone executed the VfD decision or not. Therefore, this would be a speedy delete as moving of previously VfD'd material.  At any rate, we're not here to argue about the people who close votes -- that is a wp:an matter and not a VfD matter.  Since any ambiguity at all will be misread, let me say Delete.  (I think I had voted to redirect to Orders of magnitude.  Note that 1,000 redirect votes is not a single "move" vote.  Also note that a move does not merge (which is really the least anyone could conclude -- that the voters felt that the article was a multiplication of a single article into multiple locations).) Geogre 04:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Longhair | Talk 04:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've speedily deleted this. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 08:12, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the deletion, but doing a speedy was a bit too much I think. One could have just waited a couple more of days and close the VfD properly. No? Oleg Alexandrov 15:13, 6 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.