Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/500,000

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 22:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 500,000

Pointless article, contains a self-reference. Xezbeth 15:40, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The pointlessness could be debated as it does have significance to the Wikipedia community. If nothing else, I'd keep, rename to 500,000 (number) and then link to 1 E5. --Martin Osterman 16:17, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete —Wahoofive | Talk 17:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:WIN has a paragraph on articles on arbitrary numbers. Radiant_* 17:29, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename to 500000 (number). I personally think such articles are stupid, but we have articles for other numbers, so why not this one? Remove the self reference. Dave the Red 19:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, we don't actually have articles for other numbers, unless there's something special about the number in question (e.g. PI, 42 (number) and 32767 (number). Radiant_* 20:16, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
    • Check out this for a list of all the articles on numbers we have. Some of those numbers aren't any more special then 500,000. Dave the Red 21:05, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
      • If they're not notable, they also should be deleted. If everyone else jumps off a cliff... Halidecyphon 21:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        • Exactly. The existence of other silly extrapolatory articles is no reason for keeping this one. Merged lists such as 1 E5 may have a point. Radiant_* 07:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rename to 500000 (number). Concur with the above. Mgm|^(talk) 20:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a noteworthy number, plus half of content is self-referential. Dross. -- The Anome 20:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Concur with Dave and Mgm. Keep and Rename to 500000 (number).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:03, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We have articles for notable numbers. 500,000 clearly fails to establish notability. However, radiant, I couldnt find that paragraph in What Wikipedia is not, has it been removed?Halidecyphon 21:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I've checked the history and it was lost in the shuffle. Now added back, under the Crystal Ball section. Radiant_* 07:41, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• keep all numbers less or equal to 1,000,000, we have plenty of space Kappa 23:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. —Seselwa 01:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Normally I'd say move to 500000 (number) but there's nothing in this article that's special to this number alone, it's just an incomplete list of factors. WP references don't belong in the article namespace either. --bainer 05:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and move to 500000 (number). Megan1967 06:13, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There's no useful information about the number 500000 (five hundred thousand) that's not obvious from the number itself. As a comment, having a separate article for every number up to the article count would double the number of articles (except for previously existing articles about numbers). — JIP | Talk 07:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is nothing useful here and it has no potential to become useful. --Bucephalus 17:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• keep this, rename to 500,000 (number). Yuckfoo 01:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "500,000 equals 500 times 1000" is pointless and unencyclopedic content. Unlike PI, this has no potential for expansion. Rossami (talk) 05:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it would be a bad precedent. Does anyone want there to be an article for every single number? --Asriel86 01:11, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; no useful content. Compare 72 (number). —Korath (Talk) 14:22, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless --Dr Ingel 01:17, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, but move to 500,000 (number) as suggested above. I am in agreeance with the fact that other numbers have articles, so why not this one? it is important. -User:NewGuy4
• Delete since nobody has added any information which is not obvious from the number itself since the article was nominated. Thue | talk 17:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.