Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:36, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 6009

I don't find anything notable or encyclopaedic about this. I attempted to expand, but came up with nothing. Jdcooper 18:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

  • There are plenty of other articles about years that have yet to come. Keep. Ketsuban (is better than you) 20:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:56, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, just a typographical curiosity. Frjwoolley 22:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic, unlike most of the other "future years" articles. --Carnildo 23:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. And not about a year, just about a number in decimal notation. Are we going to have articles about all numbers with interesting properties? There are surely many numbers more interesting than "mirror" numbers.... --Macrakis 02:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable Year. Perhaps the most useful thing an encyclopedia could document is the future. Klonimus 04:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think I need to remind you that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but I will anyway. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 04:21, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • You don't need a crystal ball to tell that this year is a mirror number. Kappa 21:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Klonimus' argument, such as it is, rests on the idea that Wikipedia ought to be a crystal ball, an idea that is contradicted by longstanding Wikipedia policy. The trivial fact that 6009 is a mirror of itself in Arabic numerals is quite beside the point. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL 21:38, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete utterly non-notable year/number. We have articles on many years from the next century or so, and many numbers with interesting properties, but this counts as neither. If there's anything interesting to be said it can go on 7th millennium or 6000 (number). sjorford →•← 08:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Keep the mention at 1961, though, but de-link it. — JIP | Talk 18:14, 5 Jun 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.