Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9000D

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, per WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9000D

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While not exactly a hoax (mathematically, the definition is correct), it is pretty clear that someone was trying to be funny and make a joke here. There is, of course, nothing any more special about dimension 9000 than about dimension 765,902,517. Even Wikipedia does not have enough space to have a separate article about every natural number. Speedy declined by an IP. Nsk92 (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Its a dictionary definition not an encyclopaedia article. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apparent dictionary definition of an apparently undiscussed topic. A Google search of "nine thousandth dimension" gives ~~only the Wikipedia article~~ no results. [1]. Guest9999 (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, trivial information. There is nothing special about having exactly 9000 dimensions. JIP | Talk 14:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per my earlier PROD nomination, "Trivial. If this remains, I look forward to the appearance of articles 8999D, 8998D, 8997D, etc." The article is practically begging for someone to make a point. (This is not a threat: no such article is forthcoming from me.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's actually wrong: "the space consisting of all such locations" is not called "the nine thousandth dimension", it's called "a nine-thousand dimensional space." But even if corrected, it would be trivial. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.