Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Googolquinqueplex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Googolquinqueplex

Apparent neologism number name. Was redirected to Names of large numbers as are googolduplex, googoltriplex, but User:Pilotguy reverted.

  • Delete. Gazpacho 02:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If anything, wiktionary, but not wikipedia Avi 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete total hoax. Ruby 02:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Return to redirect - the revert was probably a good-faith mistake in RC patrol. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete don't even need the redirect, but it's probably harmless. I couldn't resist cleaning it up a little. Peyna 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Names of large numbers. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-23 08:29Z
  • Redirect to Names of large numbers and mention in "Googol family" section. Not a hoax, plenty of Google hits I'll assume good faith and believe it's not a hoax, but it doesn't warrant its own article. Robin Johnson
  • Redirect no article needed but as long as it's mentioned somewhere. —This user has left wikipedia 12:20 2006-01-23
  • Redirect per quarl. Mushintalk 13:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not redirect as unverifiable, personal essay, original research, etc. unless solid evidence is presented that the term is in substantial real use. No hits in Google Scholar, No hits in Google Books, are we serious about verifiability or not? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not verifiable. Google search leaves only wiki and wiki mirrors. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 01:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect. The article does not actually document any information, but simply inflates to unnecessary importance a particular instance of a sequence the author very likely made up himself. The sequence itself already gets disparaging mention under Names of large numbers#Googol family; an actual article is superfluous. Ryan Reich 20:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Googolplex. Interesting diversion, but unworthy of its own article. --Billpg 12:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Abstain. Just re-read it. It's not that interesting. --Billpg 14:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; neologism. Fredrik Johansson - talk - contribs 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; neologism Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no redirect. Not verifiable and a dictdef. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:46, 26 January 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.