Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Large numbers


 * 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. What would usually be a pile-on of Keeps, but here is just a large number of !votes - more than sufficient referencing of the topic, (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Large numbers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A much more elaborate, but equally useless, companion of Small number, which is also up for deletion. AFAIK, this isn't a math term (Law of large numbers notwithstanding), and "large" is a matter of opinion. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The page is not useless as it gets significant traffic -- about 100K views per year and that's a large number. And, in any case, that's an argument to avoid.  What matters more is that the topic is notable.  I was listening to a radio programme the other day which was talking about the nature of numbers and discussed the difficulty that humans and other species have with large numbers.  And it's easy to find an entire book on the subject: The Lore of Large Numbers.  That's published by the American Mathematical Society.  Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Not useless, and exponentially ahead of Small number in quality (although perhaps not to the point of needing Knuth up-arrow notation to express same). The identification of specifically notable large numbers, like Graham's number and Skewe's number, and the discussion of different methods of nomenclature for such large numbers, like Conway chained-arrow notation, are topics that are eminently encyclopedic, and it makes sense for them to be addressed at a plenary level in one article. (Full disclosure: at least 20 of those views in any given year are mine; this is one of my favorite Wikipedia articles to read for geeky pleasure and as a lazy-afternoon rabbit-hole entry point. I am pretty sure I am not alone.) - Julietdeltalima   (talk)  00:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve: seriously large numbers are both interesting, and a legitimate field of mathematical enquiry. See, for example,, . Subjects like ultrafinitism are also related. -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep YGBSM! Fundamental concept. Apparently the nominator is arithmetically challenged.  No compliance with WP:Before. There are lots of sources at Google   and Google . You will find a whole library full of books and articles dealing with this subject.  No compliance with WP:Before, which creates a series of hurdles before deletion is appropriate, and creates a hierarchy for consideration before imposing the Wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment.  That is at the top of this WP:AFD nomination, and it is easy to click on.  The concept and the article are worth saving. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 14:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 7&6=thirteen, you need to tone down your hyperbole and your Gscholar link gives me multiple reasons to doubt the extents of your mathematical expertise. &#x222F; WBG converse 16:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Your opinion and mine may differ on details, but it is still a "keep" nonetheless. This deletion discussion is a waste of valuable editor time and resources. You can take that to the bank. I Don't Like It is not a policy based reason to delete. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 16:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Whilst it may be tempting to make a comparison with small numbers; it's a poor one. Per Anomie (ping me for more sources). &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes notability requirements.  D r e a m Focus  21:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep But needs a large number of RS and a smaller number of examples. StrayBolt (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I was half-tempted to do a WP:NAC under criterion 3 of WP:SKCRIT - but maybe the nom did read the article, so AGF applies. (A few more inline citations wouldn't go amiss though.) Nick Moyes (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite an important article here. PlotHelpful (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.