Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99999


 * 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   redirect to 90000 (number). (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)    15:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

99999

 * – ( View AfD View log )

My PROD reason was "The first entry [ 90000 (number) ] might be worthy of a redirect, but the Feynman point, logically, should be pointed to by 999999. I don't think it would be worth keeping as a redirect to 90000 (number). — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please move it to 999999. I can't, since it's on the "black list". --Berntisso (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It's mentioned in the 90000 (number) page, so it is a suitable redirect unless another target exists. 999999 can be created separately as a redirect to Feynman point. Peter E. James (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 999999 (number) redirects to 100000 (number) - both "999999" redirects should point to the same target. Peter E. James (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have redirected 999999 to 100000 (number). I don't think it should redirect to Feynman point, since that is not the most interesting thing about this number, let alone the only thing.  I added to the article the fact that the divisibility of this number by 7 and by 13 accounts for the fact that rational numbers with those denominators, when expressed in decimal form, have 6-digit repetends. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  — frankie (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge into 90000 (number) because it is already mentioned in that article. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge per RJH, and to save the article history. For the record, I deprodded this article because I thought that a complete deletion might be controversial. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to 90000 per RJH. Polyamorph (talk) 09:32, 8 October 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.