Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2,300,675 (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 snowball delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC) (slightly altered by Mkdw to parse properly on AFD tool)

Moved to 2,300,675

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Umm... umm... what? If there's any reason this number is notable, it's not given in the article.  Ignatz mice•talk 03:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Note: Article has been moved to 2,300,675 per WP:PRECISION.  Ignatz mice•talk 04:00, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * As the article stands, it is useless trivia about a random number. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - What, no 2,300,674 or 2,300,676? Bizarre. Oh, and delete the post-move redirects too. Stalwart 111  06:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure if this qualifies as indiscriminate or WP:NOT number directory. Mkdw talk 06:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * delete A proof exists that all numbers are interesting, but this would appear to show that the proof is defective. Mangoe (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obviously this is the number of times this article would have to be recreated and deleted before everybody gave up and let it stick around. Only 2,300,674 Afds more to go. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Adamc714 (talk) 15:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Capricious comments in AFD discussions without any rationale are dismissed without consideration. Toddst1  (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, now how would you go about saying that while also being WP:NICE? Or do you feel entitled just because it's a deletion discussion? Praemonitus (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with civility here. I see more a problem with disruptive behavior on Adamc's part, as he's done that on a few AfDs now. Ansh666 04:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Capricious: Given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior. This statement has certain implications that go beyond a mere explanation of AfD procedure. I didn't find it to be civil. Perhaps he intended to write, "Cursory comments in AFD discussions without any rationale carry little weight"? Praemonitus (talk) 23:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not a valid encyclopedic subject. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete — Was this a joke? Otherwise, per nom and Stalwart. JFHJr (㊟) 21:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not sure, but don't think this meets WP:NUMBER. I don't think the fact that it's an odd number is particularly "interesting". Ansh666 00:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-encyclopaedic. Just as we don't have articles for every soldier in Napoleon#s armies, we don't have articles for every number - as numbers are only limited by infinity, we couldn't. 'Interesting' and 'encyclopaedic' aren't the same anyway. Lots of things interest mathematicians but not the rest of us... I've deleted the one redirect I found as an implausible redirect. Adam c714 is autoblocked at the time of posting this, and I consider Toddst1 quite justified and not impolite. I see this article at best as a test, and more likely as extracting the Michael. Peridon (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and deleted the main article as well. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2013 (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.