Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novenonagintennecentupentamillimyrillion

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. — JIP | Talk 12:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Novenonagintennecentupentamillimyrillion[edit]

A really, really large, really really non-notable (and likely artificially named) number. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I believe precedent is against this. There is potential for an infinite number of these nn articles. If someone can prove this number has had any scientific use, then I'll change my vote. 23skidoo 13:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --Robby 15:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I remember having read that there is a general consensus that number are not notable by themselves (the point is what 23skidoo said). However, this is not a number but the name of a number, which makes things slightly different: we have an article on Googol, for example. In this particular case, google returns 79 hits for the article name, which makes it non-notable. ~~Therefore, Delete, but not because it is a number. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)~~ (see below)[reply]
Smerge to Other names of large numbers. Trovatore 06:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Merge per Trovatore, but apparently the merge has already been done. Is Leave it alone a valid vote in AfD? Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone has redirected it, which is the efficient solution but not entirely according to procedure. The AfD notice on the article is quite specific that the article should not be blanked, nor the notice removed, while the AfD is open. Without the notice, interested parties might miss out on the debate. These are general considerations; I don't plan to revert in this specific instance, but it would be the technically correct thing to do. --Trovatore 18:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with prejudice! This article is pointless. Unless someone wants and succeeds in writing a smashingly good article on this, I say delete. I've restored the AFD tag BTW. --C S 04:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Other names of large numbers. National Parks (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2005 (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.