Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1987 (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The result was withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka t•c 08:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

1987 (number)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't know where to begin. I have no idea what criteria this would fit, but it just feels so wrong. It's not patent nonsense, but it's close. Withdrawn due to significant improvement.Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  Very Weak Keep Move Keep It is in slightly better shape then when I found it and it would full under WikiProject Numbers, but other than being prime there is not alot you can say about 1987. Aiden Fisher (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The moving idea seems the best.Aiden Fisher (talk) 07:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since User:PrimeHunter fixed it up it is a worthwhile article and further underlines the Interesting number paradox. Aiden Fisher (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to 1900 (number), as per 400 (number) which covers integers 400 to 499. --Xiaphias (talk) 07:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that idea. Mathematics articles aren't my strong suite though. If you want to get it started I'll glady help out though.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete indiscriminate info per WP:NOT. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to 1000 (number), as per WP:NUM. Coanda-1910 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to 1000 (number), per Coanda. - =Elfin= - 341 20:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Move to 1000 (number), as above. Brentoli (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep since I expanded it to show that 1987 is sexy, alcoholic, rocks, and more. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep great job Prime.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's really hard to treat people respectfully when they say things like "per WP:NUM". Why not just include John F. Kennedy in the article people whose names start with "K"?  After all, we can't have a separate article on every person whose name starts with "K"!  The policy at WP:NUM actually had some language to the effect that "numbers are infinite" until I corrected it a few minutes ago.  In other words, it was not written by informed or thoughtful persons.  (Each integer is FINITE, not infinite.  There are INFINITELY many of them.  But they are finite.  That is universally standard usage.) Michael Hardy (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2008 (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.