Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1500000 (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 was 1500000 = 0000000, i.e. delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1500000 (number)

1500000 (number) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Not notable, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers#Before creating a new article and plenty of prior discussion. Article was prodded (by somebody else), but the author removed the PROD notice. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Viridae^Talk 07:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Wholly uninteresting. Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 11:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. - Cate 13:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The date section could possibly be moved to 1,500,000 BC, but I don't think it's notable there, either. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom. Eusebeus 14:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article seems to have been created based on a misinterpretation about the announcement of Wikipedia's 1.5 millionth article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 15:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I'm not sure notability is an issue here, but the article is entirely OR, as far as I can see ... WilyD 15:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There will be billions of articles if we create every number that exists in the Mathematical world. --Terence Ong 16:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually there's not enough matter in the visible universe to create an article for every number in the Mathematical world. ;-) — RJH (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment But there is enough if Wikipedia limits itself to numbers that have been researched by mathematicians and have been found to have interesting qualities. 1.5 mil is probably not one of these. PrimeFan 20:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete carry on like this and we'll run out of not-paper. Hut 8.5 18:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This number does not appear to be notable enough to merit its own article. Only ten OEIS results, most of which are for things like "Smith's constant to 1500000 decimal digits." PrimeFan 20:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Edit Conflict Delete completely unverified stub about an uninteresting integer.-- danntm ^T _C 20:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We're not going to make an article about every number (infiniti) in the known universe! —The Great Llama^moo? 22:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. And now, we shall delete every number greater than zero. --Dennisthe2 04:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We do not need an article for every number, and 1500000 is no different. --Fred McGarry 11:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's a frivolous article which provides no real information apart from stating the painfully obvious.--Tiberius47 12:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not worthy of it's own page.--Linuxaurus 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not every multiple of 10⁵ needs its own article. Caknuck 20:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, should be included in Trivia-Wiki, if it exists, but not here Rough 21:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete lol Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There is no need for this article, as it doesn't provide any real useful information. There should only be pages for notable numbers.--Tom^{I edit my userpage too much}, 17:18, 1 December 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.