Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googoloctodeciplex

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 SPEEDY REDIRECTED. Would people who speedy redirect articles under AfD please close the debate to save me the trouble of checking the result? — JIP | Talk 09:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Googoloctodeciplex

Unencyclopedic (uninteresting part of a limitless series) and hoaxy (0 google hits) — brighterorange (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - made up. -- WB 01:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Cute idea, but original research just the same. Acetic'^Acid 01:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this doodoo. KingTT 01:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: AfD may be moot, as it looks like someone already redirected this to Googolplex. Hilarious word, though. Remind me to say "googoloctodeciplex" six times fast the next time I need to ward off the Devil. - Sensor 02:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's collect all the googol variants on one page. Uncle Ed, the closing admin. Uncle Ed 02:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• I still prefer deletion (to a redirect), since there are zero google hits; this might not even be the correct way of spelling that number. I'm all for taking obvious actions to close out AfDs early, but so far the consensus here was for delete... — brighterorange (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Let's not. All the real googol variants, googol and googolplex, and two neologistic ones, googolduplex and googoltriplex, are covered at Names for large numbers. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Hoaxy spelling of Googolplex (or Googleplex). Andrew pmk | Talk 19:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Optichan 19:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... I know redirects are cheap, but this is apparently a neologism that has no life outside of this wiki article. All a redirect does is confer the appearance of some notability to the term where none previously existed... besides, who is going to wiki search a term that doesn't exist?--Isotope23 19:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a real word, not in real use, pure neologism, and perfect illustration of a word formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion"). Such words are "not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there a policy on deleting redirects? I defer to Dpbsmith. Uncle Ed 11:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• I don't know what the policy is. Let me clarify that my vote is indeed "delete, do not redirect" and such votes are commonly accepted as valid AfD votes and which are acted on by closers. Common sense says that changing an article to a redirect should not magically protect it against deletion. The issue is not the "cost" of the redirect, but what course of action is most calculated to discourage the insertion of bogus material into Wikipedia. Leaving the redirect might be interpreted as an endorsement of the term and lead to the insertion of bogus material into the article. For example, someone might decide that "Googoloctodeciplex" belongs in the article and write something about it there, which might then lead to a table of bogus entries (Googolseptemdeciplex, etc.), which might get wikified, and the resulting redlinks might encourage creation of further bogus articles. Bogus entries are sometimes left as redirects specifically in order to discourage re-creation, and are sometimes even protectedm but I don't think this is appropriate here. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:24, 21 October 2005 (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.