Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

March 16[edit]

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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:38, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Xfire[edit]

Cut-n-paste advertising job. If this could be rewritten into an actual article, I'd have no objection to this. --llywrch 00:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn by nominator, as below - David Gerard 23:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs rewrite and expansion. Megan1967 05:53, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete current content. Subject may be notable, but if so, restart from scratch. Radiant! 08:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, advertisement. Mgm|(talk) 08:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. This program is notable for its technology (able to detect which game is s particular user is running) and its popularity among gamers. It is also notable for its lawsuit from Yahoo!. I am rewriting itSYSS Mouse 14:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I have rewrote it. please review SYSS Mouse 16:08, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • SYSS Mouse's rewrite addresses my objections to this article; it's worth keeping as it now stands. I would like to withdraw my nomination for this article. -- llywrch 16:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep new stub. Chris 23:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Nice - David Gerard 23:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Kappa 01:47, 20 Mar 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.


This term refere to the organization which they conduct their business activities solely online

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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:53, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mary Polak[edit]

Yet another non-elected British Columbia general election, 2005 candidate. Nomination withdrawn per CJCurrie's comments below. Bearcat 01:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete --Spinboy 01:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This one should be Kept. Polak has attained national notoriety as an extremely socially-conservative school trustee (ie. getting her name in the papers by opposing literature that portrays same-sex couples in a favourable light). She's also notable as the governing-party candidate who lost the only by-election that took place in the parliament now ending. I don't have a *strong* opinion about the NDP pages that I voted to keep a few moments ago; Polak, however, is clearly over the bar in terms of notability. CJCurrie 01:52, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have to be honest; to the best of my knowledge (and I do have a vested interest in the subject of social conservatives trying to ban gay-themed books), the incident is famous. I'm not altogether sure that she's achieved much personal fame out of it. But I'm willing to strike my nomination. Bearcat 08:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am indifferent about most of the candidates but she is more notable than most as CJCurrie states above. - Jord 02:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sufficiently notable. - Webgeer 03:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, a decent article. - SimonP 04:18, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, just under the bar of notability. Megan1967 06:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd say "non-elected = non-notable" once more but would like to read some more about the incident CJCurrie mentioned. No vote as yet. Radiant! 08:54, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment See here for a story on the incident in question. - Jord 21:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • No vote, leaning towards keep. --GRider\talk 19:01, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be notable educational activist. Capitalistroadster 20:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, since the nomination has been withdrawn. Kappa 02:26, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Most unelected candidates do not deserve their own pages, but Polak's leadership in the Surrey school board's book-banning case makes her notable reagrdless of whether she is elected or not. (The case was one of the most prominent Canadian legal disputes of the last decade.) Keep. Ianking 00:33, 21 Mar 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.

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 keep and move to Sy Wexler. —Korath (Talk) 00:55, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

SY WEXLER[edit]

Non-notable I afraid - 40 results returned on Google. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Imdb entry only lists one entry. Not notable. Delete. RickK 08:02, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, wikipedia is not a memorial. One IMDB entry is not notable. Mgm|(talk) 09:06, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolute and clear Keep. Wexler was not the type of filmmaker that gets an entry in Imdb (exactly why he should be included here btw), but he had a big influence on US culture, his films won many awards, and his passing was noted in many places including npr and a featured obituary at the NYT. Jgm 15:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Though, obviously, move to Sy Wexler.) I was going to point out the Times obit, but Jgm beat me to it. See some of his work on the Internet Archive. grendel|khan 15:37, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
    • Note: the page has been cleaned up a bit. There's more info at the Times obit that can be funnelled into the article. grendel|khan 16:03, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • If the decision is for the article to be kept, I strongly recommend it to be moved to Sy Wexler, too. - Mailer Diablo 17:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Support renaming to Sy Wexler. Google is a poor barometer as is demonstrated at Wikipedia:Google test. --GRider\talk 17:36, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • And the lack of anything important at imdb? RickK 22:58, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • This is like asking why you couldn't find pork chops at the bakery. To spell it out: IMDB is a database of commercial films, not educational films. It's entirely possible to be notable in a field not currently covered extensively on the web, you know. Jgm 01:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep people with obituaries in the New York Times. Failing that, keep award-winning documentary filmmakers. Kappa 11:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:37, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - having a non-paid obit in the NYT means you ARE notable. Fawcett5 21:59, 21 Mar 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.

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 speedy delete --Carnildo 04:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Allison Criswell[edit]

ob. vanity Michael Ward 02:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • baleeted silsor 02:32, Mar 16, 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.

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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 00:57, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Feel Tank Chicago[edit]

Soft advert for a blog. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:50, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This is a major project of one of University of Chicago's most prestigious English professors. With her help, and with her permission to incorporate a bit of her scholarly material into the article, I've cleaned it up heavily. Snowspinner 14:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 06:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Only 41 Google hits. RickK 08:04, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Academic projects are something of a blind spot in Google, being known about by a small community, but still being very notable. Snowspinner 14:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until it establishes notability by hitting the news or the googles. Radiant! 08:55, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • It's primarily an academic project - this is unlikely to happen. Snowspinner 14:01, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • That is a good point, okay, let's keep it then. Radiant_* 09:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep major projects by prestigious English professors. Kappa 10:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, keep, academentia gets the short end of the Googlestick. --iMb~Mw 14:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, academic project, referenced in the journal 'Critical Inquiry'. Not that I understand these arts people, and personally suspect they're blathering on pointlessly a great deal of the time, but still more influential than yet another character from a Japanese card game. Average Earthman 12:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for reasons noted above. It's pretty gushy, though, and it would be nice to see some critical viewpoint applied by someone qualified to do so. Jgm 15:24, 17 Mar 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.

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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:01, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

TOS TrekMUSE[edit]

Vanity article. Non-notable. Delete --Spinboy 07:05, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • 15 players online, as of right now. No vote yet. —Korath (Talk) 07:38, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: The number of players they do or don't have online doesn't establish notability. --Spinboy 07:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur with Spinboy (although the #players registered would be some indication). 835 googles. Given that the age of MUDs has pretty much passed, that's probably quite a lot, and as such, weak keep. Radiant! 08:50, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 09:18, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If I might quote the previous vfd which the nominator appears to have overlooked: "Keep and cleanup - This game seems to have been around for well more than a decade (an eternity in online-game terms). They've also had real Trek actors like Shatner and Nimoy appear in-game as well, which is similarly impressive. I do agree that the current article isn't the best, and the part about connecting needs to go, but the subject is worthy of an article. Starblind 15:49, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)" Kappa 10:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I should point out, that yes, I did notice that, but at the same time, it is still a very poor article, and thus why I re-nominated it. It still hasn't established notability. If y'all want to keep it so badly, work on it. --Spinboy 17:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:41, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This went through VfD two months ago; the consensus then was to keep. Unless the site has gone away, there is no reason to delete this article. Kelly Martin 13:32, Mar 16, 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.

Gullible[edit]

Article is a joke, and appears to have been deleted previously Hansnesse 01:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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 SPEEDY DELETION under criterion A2 of the speedy deletion criteria. Mgm|(talk) 08:45, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Handbuch[edit]

German manual to German Wikipedia. Not only is it in the wrong language, but it's got no place being here, if it's ever translated. Delete this. Mgm|(talk) 08:54, Mar 16, 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.

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 speedy delete. —Korath (Talk) 22:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

T'ien Lung Tao[edit]

The article has already been deleted, but its previous deletion vote doesn't appear to have been conclusive, so I am renominating it. No evidence of notability, advertisement. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 11:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Since it's already been deleted, this should go on WP:VFU instead. Radiant_* 11:38, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I think Mike is renominating this, because it is a recreation of previously deleted material. Mgm|(talk) 11:59, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
      • Previous VfD was 4 votes to delete (including implicit vote by nominator) and only 1 vote to keep (not counting anons and sockpuppets). That is conclusive enough for me, how about we speedy this right away? jni 08:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete as ad and/or not notable. Google shows just 5 unique hits 4 of which are ads and one is a forum post. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable, ad. Megan1967 08:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as reposted material. Previous VfD was legit, despite sockpuppet accounts. Newly created martial art. Not notable enough (yet). jni 08:33, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Consider it speedied as a reposted, once-deleted advert. Fire Star 14:50, 20 Mar 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.

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 Speedy deleted as nonsense/personal attack. Thue | talk 12:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Party pooper[edit]

Certainly not encyclopedic, and also a personal attack. I will let you decide. Is this a piece of patent nonsense which ought to be speedily deleted, a title which ought to be put in wiktionary after a rewrite or whatever? I say delete. Sjakkalle 12:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Clear speedy deleted it IMO. Done. Thue | talk 12:19, 16 Mar 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.

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 keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:11, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

138 (number)[edit]

This number is not notable because it is notable. Extreme delete. Thue | talk 14:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Ah, the good old interesting number paradox. Delete unless anything more can be said. sjorford →•← 15:47, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) It's now borderline notable - neutral for now. I suspect enough can be said about 138 to make it worth keeping. sjorford →•← 22:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Proof that all integers are interesting (and should be kept?):
  1. 1 is intersting and notable, OK
  2. Assume k is interesting and notable, need to prove that k+1 is interesting and notable.
  3. If n is interesting and notable, then n+1 is interesting and notable for being one higher than an interesting and notable number.
  4. So k+1 is interesting and notable.
  5. By principle of induction all numbers are interesting and notable, but we do not have space for that unfortunately. But then again Wikipedia is not paper; and someone has expanded this from being a silly joke article to a proper article on numbers.
  6. Conclusion: This article should be deleted. 138 is a notable number, not merely notable for not being notable, which would really not be very notable, but since this is notable I will notably change my vote to a notable keep. When someone now makes the 139 (number) article, please do not let it be a silly joke however. Sjakkalle 08:26, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC) Sjakkalle 08:42, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If the only way to show an integer is notable is by using the notable integer paradox, then it doesn't deserve its own article. That's not the case with 138. PrimeFan 22:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This sounds like an argument for the deletion of high school articles. Denni 23:27, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
Well not really, there are only a finite number of high schools. Sjakkalle 08:37, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia is not paper! We could have a little Java applet called "List of interesting numbers" that keeps scrolling indefinitely higher... or an "interesting number defecating bear..." Dpbsmith (talk) 18:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • If this is redone so its along the same lines as 137, I'll vote to keep. There has to be a cut off somewhere, but 138 seems a bit too arbitrary to me. I assume there is a wikiproject for these integer articles, and that would be the best place to discuss where the consecutive numbers should end and where they should start doing only more significant numbers. -R. fiend 15:53, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The cutoff is 256. See project page. Anton Mravcek 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. Keep and cleanup then. Normally I hate voting "keep and cleanup" unless I intend to do the cleaning, because such votes result in keeping but not cleaning an article. In this case, however, I have faith that the wikiproject participants will take care of it. -R. fiend 21:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth, this number apparently is worthy of note. --GRider\talk 17:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I like the number articles normally, but there is absolutely nothing here of note. Gamaliel 17:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it is very likely that there actually is something genuinely interesting about the number 138, but... Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can articulate what it is prior to expiration of VfD. And I don't mean "138 is the atomic weight of..." or "138 is the route number of the road on which Blue Hills Ski Area is situated." Original article is basically a joke/prank. We've had others, I forget the title but we had a self-instantiating version of Russell's paradox a while back. List of Wikipedia lists that do not include themselves or something. By the way, there is a "Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers" by D. G. Wells, David Wells, ISBN 0140261494, that's very good, but I gave my copy to a friend. Would be a good reference to consult if anyone's got time for a trip to the library. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'll take your word on that. Anton Mravcek 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Possibly redirect to a page called 100s (number) that summarizes the interesting properties of integers in this range (where individual pages don't already exist). — RJH
  • Keep. Keep up with the French and the Slovene. Anton Mravcek 19:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep At least as noteworthy as a Pokemon subcharacter. And yes, more can be added. Denni 20:35, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
  • Keep. ShutterBugTrekker 21:38, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, big debate. Actually I don't care much if this is deleted, it was just an attempt at humour in the same spirit the article was written. The extreme delete was a reference to Wikipedia:Extreme article deletion. *makes note to link to that page in the future and include more smilies* Thue | talk 23:02, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Dpbsmith, I'm saddened that a seasoned wikipedian such as yourself should feel the need to vandalize an article, even one up as a VfD. Just because you feel this article in its original form was unworthy does not mean all of us do. While your pseudohumorous remark was appropriate in this discussion, it is not so in an article. Denni 23:23, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
    • ????? I haven't edited the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:38, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah. Apparently that was inserted by Anton Mravcek. Who, for the record, is not me. Whether it was amisunderstanding on his part or a prank I don't know, but if I had seen it I would have reverted. Apologies for having been an indirect agent of damage to an article. Next time I'll insert a smiley. For the record, I've stated above that I think it is very likely that there is something interesting about 138. I just wish people would find the interesting fact before creating an article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Dpbsmith, your remark that there are 138 stellations of the triakis tetrahedron sounded right enough. I wasn't so sure about frumuflex or foithboinder, but I figured that if it was in fact a joke it would be taken out quickly enough. Anton Mravcek 19:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • (Cough) It is not considered a best practice to put material whose meaning you do not understand into an article. If you don't understand the meaning, how can you be sure that the material is accurate? However, on my part I will try to avoid making deadpan jokes in future, particularly any involving cromulent sesquipedalianisms. <- joke. Dpbsmith

(talk) 20:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

          • I was wrong to do that. I apologize. Anton Mravcek 21:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Twasn't Dpb but another user who took his attempts at humor a bit too seriously. I've seen people take discussion from a VfD and insert it into an article before, but it's generally not a good idea. I think Dpb's humor was a bit too esoteric, and i guess that has its hazards. -R. fiend 01:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • P. S. The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Number is 100% real and my suggestion of it as a resource was sincere. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I think it is noteworthy of keeping. I mean it might not be as good as some other numbers, but compared to some articles, this is more noteworthy and should be kept. WB 01:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, there's enough to keep now. DS 17:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This number appears to be even more interesting than either 38 or 1138. Robert Happelberg 20:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - any number you pick out of a hat has an infinite number of "interesting" properties. Doesn't make it notable in any way however. Fawcett5 22:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If that hat has only numbers between 1 and 1024, then you're absolutely right, that number will have "an infinite number of "interesting" properties." Let's say the hat has numbers between 1 and 4294967296. The probability of picking a number with interesting (i.e., non-obvious) properties decreases dramatically. You can probably name lots of interesting properties for say, 123. But how about 123356779? 123 deserves its own article. 123356779 most likely doesn't. PrimeFan 22:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - David Gerard 23:29, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Either keep and expand series to 150 before stopping permanantely, or delete this and all previous and put into compilation by 100 (for example numbers, 101-200). Hedley 03:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm glad Dbpsmith cannot be implicated in inserting patent nonsense into this article. I would also note that this series of articles extends to 256. Numbers past that must have a darn good reason for an individual article. Denni 21:16, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Keep, since numbers have infinite numbers of interesting properties, we can should include more than 138 of them. Kappa 10:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Within project range, interesting enough number. PrimeFan 22:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep You're going to delete a number? WHAT? ParkingStones
  • Keep why not? And stop being so ridiculous with these deletions! joan53
    • The nomination was not ridiculous; look at the first version where the only notability was "138 is the smallest number not having a separate article in Wikipedia". Only after replacement of the joke article with the proper article, did this become keepworthy. Sjakkalle 08:48, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this number has several interesting properties. Alphax τεχ 01:24, Mar 21, 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.