Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A001622

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 of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A001622

What is this?? Is this a real article?? Please delete. Georgia guy 01:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like gibberish to me. -Shane Lawrence 01:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not gibberish, though. Uncle G 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake. I meant to add that comment for another article in the list that is gibberish. Not sure where I mussed up. Sincerest apologies... -Shane Lawrence 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or, upon looking at the history, I commented on the right article. So confused. I'm just going to be quiet now... -Shane Lawrence 17:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's an article about the decimal expansion of the golden ratio, using the serial number that is assigned to that particular numeric sequence in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences as the article's title for some unfathomable reason. It has been redirected to golden ratio once already. Uncle G 01:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But, no other similar re-direct exists. Georgia guy 01:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't redirect, no one is going to type that serial number in Wikipedia to find the entry on the golden ratio. Endomion 02:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I see no point in reproducing this at Wikipedia. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 02:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per poster above. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above. Simply duplicates information already in Golden ratio. -- The Anome 02:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What the? Witty lama 04:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Did some work. Hopefully it can be considered based on its content now and not the spurious comments made by the original author. 68.39.174.238 04:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to golden ratio -- MisterHand 07:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Golden Ratio. -- (aeropagitica) 08:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Golden ratio. —Quarl ^(talk) 09:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep makes sense to me.....if absolutely necessary merge and redirect I suppose Jcuk 09:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read golden ratio? Uncle G 10:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't redirect. Same reasons than for Endomion above - French Tourist 12:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with golden ratio, no redirect. JFW | T@lk 14:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an impossibility. An article merger implies a redirect. Uncle G 01:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What kind of user is going to type in A001622? None; if at all any. --Kilo-Lima 16:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (no merge). Uninteresting sequence, but the redirect is cheap and unlikely to be confused with anything else, and its presence reduces the risk of re-creation. (If necessary, lock the redirect.) --Trovatore 20:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Locking (protecting) the redirect, is not a good idea; one should protect pages sparingly. I am afraid that allowing such redirects in will open a can of worms. Redirects should be made only if they are useful I would argue, not to prevent people from creating silly-named articles. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even without the protection, I'm having a hard time seeing the downside of this redir. It doesn't mislead anyone (unlike if, say, I had left Black Mountain (California) (Diablo Range) as a redir after discovering there was a second Black Mountain in the Diablo Range), takes no noticeable server space, and I just don't see the scenario where people start putting in so many silly redirects that it becomes a problem. And I really do think one of the great functions of redirects is to preempt duplicate articles that authors may not have known were there. I'll allow that there is a countervailing issue if it's eventually decided that anons can't start new articles; the unprotected redir would allow an anon to recreate the article. --Trovatore 00:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects should be useful, that's how I see it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect- I was leaning towards delete but Trovatore makes some good points. Reyk 21:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Endomion. No-one is going to type this title in either to search or to recreate. —Blotwell 03:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless. PoorLeno 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, though I think that's a compromise. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nobody is going to type that in. I know redirects are cheap, but really... Stifle 00:11, 4 January 2006 (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.