Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/123456789 (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 all. TheProject 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 123456789 (number)

non-notable number — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, for the same reason:

• 1023456789 (number)
• 1234567890 (number)
• 12345678987654321 (number)
• 987654321 (number)
• 9876543210 (number)

• • Comment All have only one property listed, while WP:NUM suggests at least 3. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. The concept is well-covered at Pandigital number; there's no need for articles on these examples, and I see little room for article growth. ×Meegs 00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all I agree, numbers only deserve articles when they have a certain number of special properties. Pixelanteninja 00:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all I agree - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 00:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all to pandigital number, I've added them there. Hoof38 00:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. We do have a precedent for redirecting absurdly large numbers to the appropriate parent article. I still think a delete would be better. (Do we now have to resubmit this to WP:RfD? What if the change to a redirect is reverted?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, this is covered at Pandigital number, not needed in its own article unless it has notability. --Terence Ong 03:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Melchoir 03:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the redirects. I thought this should be at RfD until I saw it had been changed after appearing here. The redirects won't hurt people, and strangely enought, mathematicians or others might go to see '123456789'. However, Rename to exclude the 'number' from the end of the article/redirect name. Also, cure all the double and even triple redirects (ie: 123456789 which goes to 123,456,789 which goes to 123456789 (number) which now goes to pandigital number (aye aye aye)). Chuck^(척뉴넘) 05:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all number pages (including redirects) created by Hoof38 since 29-May-2006. Having looked at his other contributions, reversions of vandalism etc. I think we can assume good faith, he just made an error in judgement about the need for these articles. Paddles ^T_C 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all they don't deserve their own article space The Halo (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as above Trebor 11:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per Chuck. At least redirect 123456789, but you could delete the rest if you like. JeffBurdges 11:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all as nom. Beno1000 12:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. -Big Smooth 15:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, no use to the encyclopedia. --Xyrael ^T 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Base-dependent mathematical properties are generally considered not as interesting as base-independent ones. Anton Mravcek 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Not interesting enough to be worth an entry, as pandigital numbers are obvious by inspection. I'm not sure the following hypothetical danger is worth worrying about, but if we did not delete them we would be setting a precedent for allowing, say, robotic generation of millions of redirects; e.g. 1023456789000001--redirect Pandigital number; 1023456789000002--redirect Pandigital number; 1023456789000003--redirect Pandigital number; etc. Oops, did I just violate WP:BEANS? Dpbsmith (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Redirect per nom. Crazynas 18:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all The only useful redirect here is 123456789 to [[Pandigital number; we can reconsider when it's needed as a year. Septentrionalis 18:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. No redirect needed except perhaps for the smallest base 10 pandigital. PrimeFan 21:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect 123456789. It's somewhat special number, and the reader might not know the pandigital number term, so there's some point in this redirect. Delete all others, as completely useless (123456789 gives 2.5 million google hits, others times less). CP/M 22:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect 123456789 (and possibly 1234567890), if only for the surprise factor: I can imagine some kid actually typing this into the "Search" box, and I like the notion that he or she would actually get a real response, one that might teach 'em something. The rest can go into the bit bucket. --Calton | Talk 00:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, per WP:NUM. I'm undecided about redirecting them. (I like Calton's point though.) Grandmasterka 01:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, although I notice 3 now has the added property of being "the number of special properties, under which the article on that number on Wikipedia will be deleted. TheProject 03:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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.