Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1000000000000 (number)


 * 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 of the debate was redirect 1000000000000 (number) and delete 1000000000000. W.marsh 18:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

1000000000000 (number) and 1000000000000
I see no reason for the existance of these two articles. I believe 1000000000000 (number) must redirect to Orders of magnitude (numbers) while 1000000000000 should be deleted as by conventions it should refer to the year 1000000000000 and it does not make any sense to have an article abou that year.

See also Articles for deletion/1000000000000000000. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete All per nom. Insofar as numbers can be notable by themselves, these two aren't. Tevildo 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect 1000000000000 (number) and delete 1000000000000 as per nom. --Lambiam Talk 19:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom. --Coredesat 21:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep 1000000000000 (number) as reasonable disambiguation to billion and trillion and 1000000000000 as soft redirect —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henrygb (talk • contribs).
 * It is a bad thing that the billion/trillion terminology is ambiguous. But 1000000000000 (number) is not the right place to talk about it. This is dealt with at long and short scales in great detail, as well as at billion and trillion. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So if you link billion to the discussion, how is the reader supposed to know which one you mean? I think it's bad when the link just leaves a numerical value ambiguous. &mdash; RJH (talk)
 * You can write billion (10^9). I truly doubt that linking to 1000000000000 (number) is a better solution. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect and Delete per nom. -- Northenglish (talk) -- 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect and Delete per nom and Naming conventions (numbers and dates). &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 *  Strong keep of 1000000000000 (number) with absolutely no redirect. If I link trillion on a page I want to be able to link to the number, not to a discourse on how the term is ambiguous. The later is completely inane as a solution and I've struggled with this issue on astronomy pages. &mdash; RJH (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Having separate pages for trillion (short scale) and trillion (long scale) would resolve the ambiguity, but odds are they would just be merged again. Perhaps somebody has a better solution? &mdash; RJH (talk)
 * I thought I'd do for this article what PrimeFan has done for 100000000 and 1000000000, namely, list some interesting 9- and 10-digit numbers. But after putting in four Fibonacci and the factorial of 15, I didn't feel like working on it anymore. Anton Mravcek 21:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * RJHall, I don't think that a link is the correct instrument to use if you want to specify which meaning of trillion you are refering to. If you use a link, the reader must follow the link to see what you mean. The text should stand on its own as much as possible. Either use scientific notation, or say "trillion (a million times a million)" or something like that. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes well I correctly enter a "million million" and then somebody (presumably unfamiliar with the ambiguity) "corrects" the text by replacing it by a "trillion". Comparable things happen with scientific notation. These things happen on Wikipedia, and linking to an ambiguous description page is not the solution. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Are you kidding me? Would anyone actually find this information useful or for that matter search this? OTAKU 05:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No kidding, if all I remember is "what's its name" for 1E12 instead of Tera I could try 1000000000000. Admittedly I'd never add "(number)", this Wikipedia MoS idiosynceasy is useless for whole numbers with more than four digits. --&#160;Omniplex 07:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. PrimeFan 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep since we accept WP:NUM and it says those high powers of 10 get tehir own articles if that number "have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix" Numerao 22:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Surely you realize that it's open to argument whether 10^12 has the "standard word name" "trillion" in the English speaking world. You'll get no argument from me on the SI prefix side of this AND statement. Anton Mravcek 18:15, 28 June 2006 (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.