Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/968 (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. T. Canens (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

968 (number)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NUMBER. Singularity42 (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep It gets an entry in Those fascinating numbers while its neighbours don't. Warden (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tentative delete. Does not pass criterion one or two of WP:NUMBER. Criterion 3 is passed, but we should preferably have more sources, per the General Notability Guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete — Fails WP:NUMBER Baseball   Watcher  16:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonnotable number. Edison (talk) 21:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - it has been cited in the literature and has certain interesting qualities, but I couldn't find much on any of the usual databases. I added one cite about the number of digits once used for pi, but it isn't directly about this number.  Faint praise indeed. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - as has been said, fails WP:NUMBER. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Certainly not the worst number out there. Despite their infinite variety the threshold for inclusion of numbers is set very low. 968 meets the criteria. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep If this number is deleted, might as well delete all the other number entries in the encyclopedia per WP:DICTDEF.   ArcAngel    (talk) ) 21:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't nominating based on WP:DICTDEF. I was nominating based on WP:NUMBER. Many number articles do meet WP:NUMBER. I am suggesting that this number does not. Singularity42 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I wasn't suggesting that either, but just another POV that some could have on it.    ArcAngel    (talk) ) 22:45, 7 June 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.