Wikipedia talk:Cruft multiple

Untitled
Hi, I think that the last C should've been a G?  At least, I think that was the point you were trying to make.--Deville (Talk) 14:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I came here to say the same thing, saw your comment and decided to fix it. Of course because is C is unobservable, this formula is open to abuse. Pcb21 Pete 14:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, this is a little piece of genius. the wub "?!"  16:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why does this page exist??
How can N be an 'indicator of notability' when it has been defined as the (spurious numerical value of) notability?? (And is of course unobservable.)

The author is trying to make the point that there is no linear relationship between the number of Google hits the title of an article gets, and its notability. He does this by postulating exactly such a linear relationship?!? The only valid point made by this article seems to be that a meaningless number, multiplied by a meaningful number, yields another meaningless number.

As an administrator who wants in this instance to stay anonymous, I'm happy to delete this article unless there is a consensus that the WP namespace is the correct place for jokes, paranoid ranting and/or provocation.


 * lmao, last time i checked you weren't an admin even before you were banned, via strass.