Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/135797531 (number)

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 redirect. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:48, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

135797531 (number)[edit]

Non-notable number. Georgia guy 02:11, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. Delete. This one doesn't even provide any fun facts like 11111 did. AиDя01DTALK 03:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, it does. But it's a fun fact that's already mentioned in Charles Bridge. ☺ Uncle G 03:33, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  - <homer>Blah blah blah bridge... Bo-ring!</homer> Not what I would consider a fun fact. :-) AиDя01D TALK 03:42, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Keep very notable number. Klonimus 05:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep numbers if something encyclopedic can be said about them, as in this case. Kappa 05:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charles Bridge. Not a notable number on its own. the wub (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, agree with the wub. — JIP | Talk 09:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charles Bridge. Topic isn't substantial enough on its own. A picture of the foundation stone showing the craved number would be great. --NormanEinstein 16:32, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep please it seems notable to me Yuckfoo 18:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- number gamescome under "Deep thoughts". Also see Interesting Number Paradox. Haikupoet 18:49, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Quale 18:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already mentioned in the Charles Bridge article. No need to have duplicated info, plus no one is ever going to type that number in the search box! Sarg 19:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge entry into 10⁶ section Orders of magnitude (numbers), then delete. (The powers go up by three from 10⁶ onward.) — RJH 19:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already covered in the Charles Bridge article, and I can't imagine anyone searching for the number by itself. --Carnildo 19:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ashibaka (tock) 19:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charles Bridge. A visitor to the bridge could conceivably search on that inscription; unlikely, but redirects are cheap. The underlying story is barely encyclopedic for inclusionists at best; the story doesn't need to be two places, and there doesn't seem to be anything here distinct from the parent article. Is this Numbers Week or something? Barno 22:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and incorporate info into Bridge article. Jacob1207 22:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Charles Bridge. --Un focused 05:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. R adiant _* 08:42, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to Charles Bridge. Sjakkalle 14:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep oh yes. Read the article. No question to keep. Internodeuser 20:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You have got to be kidding that this in any way, shape, or form encyclopedic. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charles Bridge. Oleg Alexandrov 23:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete come on... no need to boost an article count like that. Getting to 11 billion would be too easy. Grue 12:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, merge, etc. - vaguely interesting, yes, but not much more can be said about it than what's already in Charles Bridge. 67.101.113.10 June 01 2005

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.