Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theoretical Highest Countable 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. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Theoretical Highest Countable Number

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Besides referencing issues, I'm not sure what the notability of this "number" is supposed to be. This doesn't meet WP:NUMBER IMHO. Prod was removed by article's primary editor. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even an actual number, just a couple of (unrealistic) calculations of how high a person could count, one of them OR -- because it's not actually a number, it can't satisfy WP:NUMBER.  Baileypalblue (talk) 07:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research and no indication of notability Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a unique number and hence fails WP:NUMBER. Besides its calculation is based on pure assumptions. Salih  ( talk ) 08:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. OR. Could be notable for dumbness of assumption: It takes the person an average of five seconds to speak each number. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - for managing the rare double of contravening WP:OR and containing sheer dumbness (It takes the person an average of five seconds to speak each number.). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) | (talk to me) | (What I've done)  15:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;The word 'countable' has a definite meaning in mathematics, and it doesn't have to do with a person's life span. The title is misleading and this article is in the nature of a back of the envelope calculation with no particular notability.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete obvious OR (would have been a dead cert for BJAODN). Gandalf61 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This could theoretically be merged with Natural number, as many of our mathematical articles lack information on the human implications of what they describe, but we would need to have reliable sources that discuss this subject. Phil Bridger (talk)
 * It's not a serious mathematical treatment though. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This might be (but probably not) worth a terse sentence within some (but I can't guess which) other article, but it's not worth an article. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2009 (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.