Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/10001 (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 of the debate was Delete. --F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 03:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10001 (number)[edit]

Numbercruft. Wikipedia does not need an article on every number- there's nothing in the article to indicate there's anything interesting at all about 10001 The El Reyko 01:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NUM test. Morgan Wick 02:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Morgan Wick. Gwernol 02:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Morgan Wick. DarthVad e r 02:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, good faith numbercruft Deizio 03:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Morgan Wick. Sorry Guy 03:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As amusing as the concept of "numbercruft" is, we really don't need an article on this. The sidebar is very cute, though. :3 RMG 04:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NUM Arctic Gnome 05:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Integers: Continuous from -1 to 200. Multiples of 100 from 300 to 900, then multiples of 1000 to 9000. Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 10¹⁰)." - WP:NUM. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I (whimsically) suggect deleting the article but keeping the sidebar -- Simon Cursitor
Delete, article does not assert any notability. If there were even one non-obvious thing to say about this number then I would consider voting "keep". JIP | Talk 09:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Morgan Wick. --Ter e nc e Ong 12:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - um, notability not really asserted. Colon el Tom 13:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Well it is a binary palindrome, and those are kind of rare. --Bachrach44 13:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, there are rather a lot of them! Robin Johnson 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- An infinite number, to be precise. —Encephalon 17:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also a decimal palindrome, and there are a "smaller infinite" number of them. Barno 01:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or maybe a "bigger infinite" number, depending on how you look at it. Now I've confused myself. Sigh. Barno 02:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Robin Johnson 13:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 10000 (number). Don't merge. — RJH 17:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Oleg & aeropagitica. —Encephalon 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 73 x 137 times, per WP:NUM. No redirect, no merge. Barno 17:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article (even though I cleaned it up a little). No redirect, nothing to merge. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall hearing about this number. Oh, and delete it. Optichan 17:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Copper (talk • contribs)

Next time please remember to sign your comments. And by the way, delete. If this exists, why don't we have an article on 348725688, or 3948064933676? Freddie 15:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just another number. The article does not establish its notability. — TheKMan^talk 23:05, 30 April 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.