Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100000 (Year)


 * 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. Tim Song (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

100000 (Year)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The year may well come but think that at the moment this falls foul of WP:CRYSTAL Codf1977 (talk) 10:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Rather silly since the only fact given is that humans will have split into two subspecies, a process that takes longer than one year. :-) (Plus the Second Coming of Christ will have already taken place so we will no longer number years by the year of his original birth.) Steve Dufour (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to 11th millenium and beyond.SPNic (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a likely search term. Would such a redirect be likely to be kept at RfD?  Powers T 13:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, crystal ball and unsourced - the quoted reference supports the claim, if at all, for the year 102006, not 100000. No redirect necessary. --Pgallert (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  16:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect per SPNic. 100,000 AD redirects to 11th millenium and beyond, and it makes sense-- most people do not put in a comma when referring to a year (i.e., nobody says that this is the year 2,010).  Mandsford 16:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be fine if we were talking about 100000 or even 100000 AD, but the disambiguator "(Year)" makes it very unlikely as a search term or linking term. Powers T 17:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. It doesn't turn up on the search engine until you throw in the parentheses.  Mandsford 19:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, also unlikely search term.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2010 (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.