Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ducentillion


 * 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 of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page &#x260E;  ) 00:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ducentillion

 * Delete or redirect, this article doesn't seem to be anymore than a dictionary entry. Foosher 22:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, since its pretty pointless to start making an infinite list of every big number, even if it just redirects to Names of large numbers. - Bobet 02:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect if name can be verified, otherwise delete. The list is infinite in principle; in practice I'm confident the number-namers will run out of interest before WP runs out of resources. Redirects, so they tell me, are cheap, and hopefully they discourage people from writing new articles when they see that all the info is in the target article. --Trovatore 04:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to names of large numbers. 64.194.44.220 12:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a standard word. verifiability problems. Not in standard dictionaries. Although it appears in names of large numbers no citation for its use is given. Google references seem to me to be websites echoing each other. No hits in Google Print. No hits in a9.com book search for "ducentillion." Per WP:NOT words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Dpbsmith. linas 23:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to names of large numbers since it is mentioned there, per Trovatore. If the word is not verifiable, then the article may be deleted, but in that case, it shouldn't be in names of large numbers in the first place. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. (If delete fails, redirect to names of large numbers.)  Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to names of large numbers. Foogol 23:28, 23 November 2005 (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.