Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3103 (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   delete. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

3103 (number)

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

Article about a non-notable number. (I should perhaps remark that some numbers are notable, e.g. 1729). A PROD was removed by another editor saying "No need to prod, just redirect to the right article" and redirecting it to 3000 (number), which contains a list of 112 notable numbers in the range 3000 - 3999; however, 3103 is not one of that list. This article's problem is that there is nothing of interest to say about its subject, and redirecting to an article which also has nothing to say about the subject seems pointless. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * note. This article meets criteria for speedy deletion.  I'll template it.  Digital Ninja  22:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete based on a lack of reasonable rationale for it to remain, and no reasonable rationale given to keep or redirect. I don't see an actual "claim of notability" that needs verifying, but I am not sure what criteria a number fits under if you tried to speedy it. (ie: don't think it will fly)  Still not notable that I can see.  P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 23:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reason it is particularly notable. I don't know why it was created in the first place.  Oh well, remove it.  David WS  (contribs)  23:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for complete lack of content. Anything about the numbers used in accounting should go into accounting articles. - Mgm|(talk) 00:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails the Number notability guidelines -- Flewis (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete A quick Google search doesn't turn up anything that wouldn't be better in a different article anyway (eg. 3103 Eger, ISO 3103). I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the bit in the article regarding its use as a POST number for a bank account. Anything interesting there? Matt Deres (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, no worthwhile information to warrant an article. As far as I can see the comment about the POST number is rather less than interesting: any accounting package will use codes (generally four-digit) to represent all the various places that money and will be flowing within an accounting system. Apparently in whatever the package the article creator uses, 3103 is the bank account. This is far from standard (in the package I use it happens to be 6480, which is equally arbitrary), so I don't think it counts as any kind of notable use of the number. ~ mazca  t 12:59, 3 November 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.