Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Quadrillion pool

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (after discounting many, many anons and sockpuppets). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE -- This page has been {{sprotected}} due to vandalism by anonymous users. Input from Anonymous and Very New editors is still welcomed, but should be added at the talk page of this section for now. Closing admin, be sure to check for input there before closing this. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note the User:Science3456 sockpuppet! (Vote in small font) —Ruud 23:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This pool is outright absurd. How are these numbers talked about outside the world of science and astronomy?? Georgia guy 14:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think you could have included a bit more information in your nomination? At the very least, you could have omitted that ugly bold "vote" thing. Are you nominating or voting? 61.68.93.85 20:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's not late enough to have so many pools with huge numbers when Wikipedia now has just over a million articles. I think having just a 5M pool and a 10M pool is enough for right now. Georgia guy 20:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The pool is absurd, but doesn't cause much harm and is a little significant. Jet Engines 14:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We did have a debate about these sometime ago, but I think enough time has gone by to reopen the matter. I agreed they were absurd (and unmaintainable, since there are an infinite number of "large numbers) in the first debate, and I still do today. Xoloz 15:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There's no point in having a poll that is that large as there will never be that many articles in wikipedia because as all new articles are added older ones will become irrelevant and uninteresting and thus deleted. This will keep the numbers in check.
• Keep. No harm. Wikipedia fun. Brings together the community. 172.145.236.192 16:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If I remember, about a month ago a new user created about 5 of these. I say delete the ones that have barely any votes, and keep the ones that have been around for longer than 2 or 3 months. -Whomp 18:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia fun, as is the eleventy billion pool 152.163.100.130 19:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I propose a new rule about unregistered Wikipedians' votes on Mfd; see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Georgia guy 19:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    • That is a silly rule. Now, kindly bring us ... a shrubbery! 61.68.93.85 20:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia is absurd. How on earth can an encyclopedia be written by ordinary people. Steve block Talk 19:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Steve block. I don't see how this can cause any harm and anyway, a little ambition never hurt anyone. RicDod 20:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For anyone voting, here is the Wikipedia pool chronology that I wanted:

1. After Wikipedia reaches 1M articles, the 2M pool is closed and a 10M pool is open.
2. After Wikipedia reaches 2.5M articles, the 5M pool is closed and a 20M pool is open.
3. After Wikipedia reaches 5M aritcles, the 10M pool is closed and a 50M pool is open.
4. After Wikipedia reaches 10M articles, the 20M pool is closed and a 100M pool is open.

And so on. However, the many pools some Wikipedians have been creating is much more absurd thing. Georgia guy 20:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, having a Quadrillion pool is a bit silly. But it's harmless, fun speculation. Once upon a time the million article pool would have looked silly too. 61.68.93.85 20:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/BJAODN all of these pools, if the encyclopedia ever got that large it would be in ammount of time that all editors betting on these pools would be long gone. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Added or BJAODN. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. These pools are very interesting. StuRat 06:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm all for these pools, but I think anything after the Trillion Pool is a bit much. If these things don't go unchecked, we could see a Googolplex Pool or a Graham's Number Pool (Note: these two events could never occur, as there are fewer particles in the universe than either number, thus there can never be enough bytes of data to store these articles. What I'm saying is, don't try creating them). Timrem 23:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • By the way, this is the list of all huge-number pools I've found. Let's end the madness! Timrem 00:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Quadrillion pool
    • Wikipedia:Quintillion pool
    • Wikipedia:Sextillion pool
    • Wikipedia:Septillion pool
    • Wikipedia:Octillion pool
    • Wikipedia:Nonillion pool
    • Wikipedia:Decillion pool
  • Again, more pools. When I checked them, they each only had 1 vote, the creator of the pool. Timrem 21:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:123,456,789 pool
    • Wikipedia:987,654,321 pool
    • Wikipedia:1,023,456,789 pool
    • Wikipedia:1,234,567,890 pool
    • Wikipedia:9,876,543,210 pool
      • Also Wikipedia:Hundred-million pool. —Ruud 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Fomz 00:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Which vote above?? Georgia guy 00:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The vote by User:Steve block Fomz 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Which is very ridiculous! Encyclopedias are supposed to be reference materials. Georgia guy 00:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
        • This is on the namespace, not the article space, and is therefore part of the community side of wikipedia. Whilst wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, it is also a community in a very strong second sense. This page is not in the reference space and does little harm. If the space is ever needed, I can see a reason to delete, or if the problem ever gets out of hand to the point at which disruption would ensue, no problem. This moment in time, I can't see a problem retaining it. Steve block Talk 17:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Definitely silly, but nothing wrong with that. We can use some humor in the Wikipedia namespace. See also m:Category:Humor.

—Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong DELETE - There are other silly polls. This is just repetitive and not funny. Beltz
• BJAODN it and all other silly pools (two million pool doesn't bother me though). If people want to add to it after it's at BJAODN then I don't care. BrokenSegue 17:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Wikipedia fun and humor. Free for all 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete/Banish to Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Land. Yes, it's fun, but this page (and the related others listed above) has no legitimate purpose. I suppose it could be added to WP:BJAODN, if enough people agree. WikiPrez 21:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. --Ixfd64 21:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move to BJAODN or Delete all articles mentioned above, per above. -Quiddity 22:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, possibly BJAODN them, all the pools above 5 million. Seriously useless. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• NOTICE This MFD was early closed by User talk:Who is your daddy?, but has been reopened to continue the discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and BJAODN all. Kusma (討論) 02:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep reading the fun pool guesses was one of the main factors that got me started on Wikipedia.Maestlin 16:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I too enjoy reading the guesses on these pools, but there are already enough of them for people to make predictions on. We just don't need to go this high. Timrem 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(Following debate merged from Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:1,234,567,890 pool)

• Wikipedia:1,234,567,890 pool
• Wikipedia:123,456,789 pool
• Wikipedia:9,876,543,210 pool
• Wikipedia: 987,654,321 pool
• Wikipedia:1,023,456,789 pool
• Note merged these back in, as this debate was closed prematurely. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Shoxer has a thing for "pandigital numbers". It seems that even Wikipedians in a silly enough mood to visit the pools don't share his enthusiasm. Some of these are even so close to the million, billion, or ten-billion pools that, given exponential growth, they'd probably happen in the same week. But mostly if we open a pool for every number someone likes, we'll have a whole bunch of pools with one person participating. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. These pools haven't been open very long. It usually takes a while in any pool for more people to participate. 152.163.100.6 23:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Unlike the Quadrillion pool and the like, these pools are for fairly arbitrary numbers -- and unlike the eleventy-billion pool, they aren't funny. --Carnildo 23:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, especially the 123,456,789 pool. Pandigital numbers are significant. Much less arbitrary than say, a 2,586,496 pool or a 4,956,569,576 pool which I would definite agree on deleting. 152.163.100.6 23:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the 123,456,789 pool and delete the others. 123,456,789 is actually interesting as it has all the number digits in order. Jet Engines 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • It may be self-evident to you, but why does that make it interesting to predict when that article number will be created? As a much less relevant objection, didn't you forget 0 as a digit? Some of those other numbers work in 0; I think they're all about as interesting as each other, mostly because they are all not interesting. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A bit interesting. BlackLight 23:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, useless and not funny. No reason to keep these just because they are not in article space. Kusma (討論) 23:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete These seem unlikely to draw more than a few guesses. I didn't even notice they were "pandigital" until it was pointed out. Maestlin 16:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or move to BJAODN at best. -Big Smooth 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Okay, I'm sold, it's out of hand. Steve block Talk 22:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You might want to strike your earlier vote, then. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 01:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I did at the time, but I've removed the bold from it to make that clearer. I still stand by the comment, and I trust that the closing admin would read the debate closely and properly. Steve block Talk 11:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. —Ruud 00:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all. Whilst I don't see a problem with having a few pools it seems that it is now completely out of hand. RicDod 17:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate was closed improperly by the new user Plasbar. I have reopened it. Kusma (討論) 01:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Question: Can't we speedy delete all of them as WP:CSD#G5? Kusma (討論) 02:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, pointless & not funny. MaxSem 11:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Oh, for Galt's sake...get the corncob out of your ass. Kurt Weber 01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No more silly than having a Wikipedia:last topic pool. 64.12.116.130 06:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This is patently absurd. Even if wikipedia had an article for everyone on the planet it would never come close. Delete and maybe consider recreating if and when the number or artcles reaches several trillian. Ydam 11:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
• NOTE: Complex vote-changing v here. Please take into account.--M@rēino 14:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  This page has been sprotected, see message at top. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• The page was closed improperly again by yet another sockpuppet. I'm taking this as a strong indication that we should delete. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:18, 19 May 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.