Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3571 (number) (2nd nomination)


 * 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    Keep. While technically this is the wrong venue for discussion of a redirect, we've had the discussion and a consensus has been reached. Therefore per WP:NOT and WP:IAR I am implementing the consensus rather than referring for a new discussion at RfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

3571 (number)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am proposing to delete this page because it just redirects to a different number page, which isn't the same number. The number 3000 has nothing to do with 3521, and the content for 3521 was already removed because it's an unremarkable number. There's no reason to have a number page that redirects to another number page, that just doesn't make sense. Time to delete it. TrufflesTheLamb (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 1.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  20:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be a pointless redirect. Edison (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Revert to redirect. To avoid proliferation of number articles, "round" numbers include minimal information about others in their "range", with redirects as appropriate.  Thus, 422 (number) redirects to 400 (number), and what content there is for 422 appears in a list on that page.  Similarly, that 3571 is the "500th prime, Cuban prime of the form x = y + 1, 17th Lucas number, 4th balanced prime of order 4" already appears in the list at 3000 (number) and this should (once again) redirect there.  Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wrong venue – this should be nominated at Redirects for discussion. --Lambiam 03:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is content about the number 3571 at 3000 (number), so it is useful and perfectly reasonable to redirect there.  Peacock (talk) 17:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - as has been pointed out, there is actual content about 3571 in the 3000 article; therefore, this is an appropriate redirect. Lady  of  Shalott  18:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A number significant in several respects. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep. Valid redirect. James500 (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as a redirect. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2011 (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.