Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetrillion


 * 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   merge to List_of_numbers. Shi meru  08:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Tetrillion

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I think this article is over-trivially created. Yes, tetrillion does exist as a number under the Gillion system, but it is almost unused in the world. Nearly all large-number terms after quadrillion have no article of their own, why this one? Dengero (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it deserves to be used. 1012 is a commonly used number, whereas 1015 and so on are not. How are people going to start using it if we hide its existence? There is an entry (a redirect) for "gillion" already. (Now don't go and start deleting that one too!) Anyway, what difference does it make to you? Are you worried about disk space on Wikipedia's computers? Just this discussion is taking up more disk space than my two-sentence article! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that rather than deleting the article, it could do with being tagged as a stub or be tagged as needing "wikifying" to make it more suitable for wikipedia because at the moment, it doesn't seem very useful as a two line article, but if it was to have more information put into it, I think it would be a useful article for wikipedia users looking for mathematics information. I have tagged it as a maths stub for now. Tomdresser27 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to List_of_numbers is a useful redirect but does not pass WP:N to allow it's own article. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 16:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per tomdresser. of course the integer is notable, but this word as a name for it is definitely not notable, yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: The section about the Gillion system is not reliably sourced and should probably be removed. (In fact, much of the article has verifiability issues.) The article Long and short scales explains the issue the Gillion system is trying to solve.--RDBury (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect - Clearly not notable. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 03:18, 20 June 2010 (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.