Category talk:Candidates for deletion

Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labelled for deletion.

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
I think that the redirect 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 → Googol should be deleted, because it doesn't fit into Special:Allpages. --84.61.176.82 09:32, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Who will write 100...00 (100 zeroes) instead of googol in title? Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 10:39, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * How about a following rule: every redirect starting at a number more than 20 digits long should be deleted if a number has more compact name. Do you agree with that? LittlePeng9 (talk) 16:09, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
 * Seconded. These hundred-digit redirects are ridiculous and of no use. FB100Z &bull; talk &bull; contribs 10:31, December 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * psst* If a number with more than 20 digits doesn't have a compact name, then its decimal expansion wouldn't be a redirect at the first place. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 11:09, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
 * OMG I will eat you Cloudy! (Wat this?) 08:53, December 11, 2014 (UTC)

Matthew's Function shouldn't be deleted
This is the main source of my function. What can I do to add sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubby3 (talk • contribs) 16:58, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

You have to publish your notations in external source, e.g. on Google Sites. LittlePeng9 (talk) 17:06, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

I think we can keep mattthew's function, when The author puts an external link and defines it in english —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antares.I.G.Harrison (talk • contribs) 11:13, February 8, 2015 (UTC)


 * If someone takes their time to write a quality article about this function, I won't delete. I don't want on this wiki a notation based almost solely on few examples. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:35, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no definition, those examples are the definition. I vote keep. Wythagoras (talk) 12:47, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
 * Btw, Peng, do you want to delete the BEAF article? Wythagoras (talk) 12:47, February 8, 2015 (UTC)


 * BEAF article has at least historical reasons to stay. If it was some new notation defined in a way it is, I probably would want to delete it as well. Beyond that, my main point with wanting to delete Matthew's function is the quality issue, and the fact that the definition can be fixed without a bigger problem if one took their time. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:58, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Just delete this page Bubby3 (talk) 20:11, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

I think Utter Oblivion should not be deleted!
I just wrote a page called Utter Oblivion,and it was quickly labeled as a candidat for deletion.

I made the page respectably and I put the sources this time,so I do not see a reason for it to be deleted.

If someone thinks it should get deleted,than tell me and I will correct myself.

Boboris02 (talk) 17:10, October 4, 2016 (UTC)Boboris02Boboris02 (talk) 17:10, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
 * Functions that can compute numbers from any functions with n symbols is illdefined. AarexWikia04 - 17:37, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

Well...,that`s how it was defined in the source.

Jonathan Bowers,himself said it.I did not add anything that wasn`t clearly stated in the original article.

Boboris02 (talk) 18:05, October 4, 2016 (UTC)Boboris02Boboris02 (talk) 18:05, October 4, 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think this article should be deleted, as the same way the article for Oblivion isn't deleted. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 02:00, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

Googology Course
Googology Course should not be deleted. It is a great way to learn googology. It tell you what order you learn everything. It's helpful and should not be deleted. Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC)22:58, January 30, 2017 (UTC)‎

It has no sources. Every article must source something and link to it. So it has to be. Username5243 (talk) 23:13, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

It has a source. Check it. Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC) 23:29, January 30, 2017 (UTC)‎

Yes, but it isn't linked Username5243 (talk) 23:37, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

It has a source. Check again Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC) 00:07, January 31, 2017 (UTC)‎

I see what you are getting at. What I mean is, usually the source is linked directly (that is, a URL is added with a link to the source). That page does not have that. This is necessary to show the source can be reached. Username5243 (talk) 00:09, January 31, 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no rules that a souce has to be linked (most books can't be linked, for example), so I don't think that's a valid reason for deletion. However, I suggest the page's deletion for a different reason: The page appears to be promotional in tone. The first thought when I saw the page was created is that to move it to userspace, which I did. The creator did further edits to that page, meaning they are aware of the page move; until the issue is fixed, it's best left at the userspace. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 02:04, January 31, 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't rellay mean for it to be a promotion. I wrote it just for fun and it's 100% free. If anyone wanted access to it, I would be happy to give it to them.


 * Just because it's free doesn't invalidate the claim that the article promotes it, or at least very much looks like it does.
 * Regarding the source, I'd say that a problem with it is that it is unverifiable. A Google search doesn't give any results. If you could have the (unfinished, or wait until it's finished) course uploaded and available somewhere, I would say there wouldn't be a problem with it. LittlePeng9 (talk) 14:55, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with LP. Normally source is something that is published. It is not published yet. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 18:22, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

I have decided to delete this article for now. Feel free to edit the page on your user space, but I would kindly request for you to not recreate the mainspace article, until you have some freely accessible source for it. Once you do, I think it would also be for the best if you left creating this article to us, so that we can write it in a more objective manner (see also this part of our Wiki's policy). LittlePeng9 (talk) 18:30, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

clouds! ⛅ 02:00, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

Megafugatwelve
Megafugatwelve (and Megafugathirteen) should not be deleted.

I do not know how to add sources to a wiki article, but Megafuga-x is a pretty well known name for x↑↑x. One source (among many) for this fact:

https://sites.google.com/site/pointlesslargenumberstuff/home/l/pglf

To add sources to an article, just put, and then make a sources section that contains. Username5243 (talk) 20:57, April 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * This source (and suppose neither do others) doesn't list this explicit number. Unless you point one which mentions Megafugatwelve, this article lacks references. Also worth noting that we have an article for megafuga- prefix. LittlePeng9 (talk) 21:08, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
 * Why should that matter? It's a large number that has a name, and the source confirms that this name is the correct one for this number.
 * You could argue that since the case of x=12 wasn't specifically mentioned anywhere, then it doesn't meet the "notability" criteria for a main-space article. But is it really less notable then, say, "Trihemoth-Giant-turreted-territethrateron" (a number which even Saibian himself didn't bother to give any kind of description for)? Or numbers by Aarex and Denis and Username5243, which no-one outside our little community knows anything about?
 * Don't get me wrong - I'm all for allowing all these numbers in the mainspace of the wiki. As long as they are well defined, have an outside source, and are relevant to googology - why not? I'm simply saying that disallowing megafugatwelve while allowing all these other rnumbers doesn't make much sense.
 * (by the way, the previous unsigned comment was me. Forgot to sign it. Sorry) PsiCubed2 (talk) 22:53, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
 * My understanding of citation rules here is that every number article needs a reference which defines, or at least mentions, the specific number explicitly. Just because the number can be defined in a particular manner is not yet a reason to include it here. This has nothing to do with notability. LittlePeng9 (talk) 06:20, April 7, 2017 (UTC)


 * Do you have a citation for your understanding of the citation rules? ;-)


 * As far I know, there are no citation rules here - yet. And quite frankly, I find the specific rule you are proposing to be absurd. In what way is megafugatwelve any less "canonical" a number then megafugaseven? Is our a wiki an actual reference for the world of large numbers, or a stamp-collection of the stuff people list on their websites?


 * Also, according to this proposed rule, if someone makes a website with nothing but a list of thousands of random number names, all these numbers would suddenly be eligible for the mainspace here. Even if they were all things like "one million three hundred and seventy two thousand two hundred and fifty one" and none of them contained any explanations for why the number is listed. Does this makes sense to you?


 * As Sabiis Saibian said a few months ago, this community has to answer some hard questions regarding the purpose of this wiki. It doesn't really matter what these answers are. The important thing is to have a set of consistent guidelines which serve an agreed-upon prupose. PsiCubed2 (talk) 08:22, April 10, 2017 (UTC)

Best Idea for a Notation Ever
Please remove the deletion candidate tag from my page "Best Idea for a Notation Ever". I also really don't like how the reason given was just "Seriously?" That is criticism and he claims he put the tag because of his opinion on it. If no one wanted to read that, they really didn't have to. It didn't contain anything disrespectful, and if you don't know, it's a joke. It's a disrespectful way to force your criticism onto me when I am not affecting anyone. Also, I made it as a general article because I was making a page on a notation that was already invented. You need to learn to respect other people's opinions(As long as they aren't affecting you in a morally wrong way), and you guys take things too seriously. Come on, just have fun and crack a harmless joke once in a while, instead of being robots employed by a type over 9000 civilization to develop their language of FOST! 2607:FB90:983D:D1BE:1509:FD7B:F460:1F3A 23:23, August 10, 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the Googology Wiki. The purpose of a wiki page is not for you to present your ideas, but instead for people to be informed about what is going on in modern-day Googology. As an alternative, put your ideas on your blog. It just doesn't belong on a Wiki page. Nathan Richardson "Simon Weston" 19:47, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

He can't. In case you didn't notice, he is an anonymous user, and I'm fairly confident his user account got banned last month. So that was his only choice.

@AFU:: My "Seriously?" was in response to you coming back as a sock puppet. I knew who you are, and I know you got banned. So don't try to get around the ban. It's that simple.

In any case, it seemed Cloudy decided to put this as a subpage to his "Department of bubbly negative numberottles" (which I guess is where funny stuff that was made in main space but shouldn't be there goes). Username5243 (talk) 20:25, August 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * I agreed. Googleaarex (talk) 20:35, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Category:Orders of symmetric groups
“This category is exactly the same as the category of factorial numbers.”

But the Category:Factorial numbers contains also numbers such as Expofaxul, which are not the order of any symmetric group. --84.61.152.123 16:43, September 3, 2017 (UTC)

365
Since there are two facts with different categories, it should be kept. --109.40.3.97 17:22, January 4, 2018 (UTC)

153.192.102.124 00:25, January 11, 2018 (UTC) I disagree with my page being labeled a candidate for deletion because my page is about a topic that is not my own and I added citations to the page.

Pages created by User:Zerimtam
The User:Zerimtam has been blocked for unsourced page creation. Can we delete Megafugafourteen, Megafugafifteen, Megafugasixteen, Megafugaseventeen, Megafugaeighteen, Megafuganineteen, and Megafugatwenty? I consent to delinking the deleted pages in my comment. --109.40.3.61 18:00, January 11, 2018 (UTC)

Googovple-
For some pages starting with “Googovple-”, such as Googovplexvij, Googovplexix and Googovplexxi, we can’t find sources. Can we delete them? --109.40.3.61 19:45, January 11, 2018 (UTC)

Template proposal:Numberlink …
… should be not deleted, but moved to Template:Numberlink (or a shorter name). --109.40.3.61 09:51, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

What is this template for? Do we really need this? Rpakr (talk) 09:59, January 13, 2018 (UTC)


 * It was used in 299792458, and can be used to shorten links to unnamed numbers with about 20 digits. --109.40.3.61 10:07, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

Substubs in the 700s range
Some user(s) has/have created substubs in the 700s range; namely, 701, 705, 706, 707, 708, 711, 712, 713, 716, 717, 718, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726 and 727. Can we delete these? I consent to delinking the deleted pages in my comment. --109.41.195.44 10:55, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

But we should keep the following pages for now:


 * 1) 700 (alphabetic numeral; commemorative coin);
 * 2) 702 (alphabet-related combinatorics);
 * 3) 703 and 710 (radio frequencies);
 * 4) 704 and 720 (TV picture resolution);
 * 5) 709 (parliament-related);
 * 6) 714 and 715 (Ruth-Aaron pair);
 * 7) 719 and 721 (DST-related);
 * 8) 728 and 729 (Smith brothers).

--109.41.195.44 11:02, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

As I said here, all articles should be relevant to gooology, so they should be deleted. Maybe we can keep the 700 article, but for me a number being a radio frequency or being related to parliament is not a good reason to keep the article. If the article is related to googology then it should be kept. (for example, a value of a googological function like 107 or having a name in googology like 405) Rpakr (talk) 13:23, January 16, 2018 (UTC)
 * Or being used in googologisms like 666. Rpakr (talk) 16:59, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

I already turned 703, 704 and 710 into redirects. --109.41.195.44 13:37, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Since the Category:Numbers in metrology contains stubs, we need a page Numbers in metrology. And where should 719, 721, 743 and 745 go: a) to Calendar-related numbers or b) to Numbers in metrology? --109.41.195.44 13:41, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a page Unnamed numbers with multiple unrelated uses. --109.41.195.44 13:45, January 16, 2018 (UTC)


 * Or should it be named Unnamed numbers with various unrelated uses? --109.41.195.44 15:30, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

We have a Category:Numbers in politics, but no page Numbers in politics. Can we create the latter? --109.41.195.44 13:55, January 16, 2018 (UTC)


 * If this page has been created, then 709, 3497 and 7228 should be turned into redirects. I added a fact about the concert pitch to 435. --109.41.195.44 14:05, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Confusable proposed SI prefixes
Some proposed SI prefixes are too large or too small for any practical use, and can even be confused in some languages. In particular, I request the deletion of the following unsourced prefixes:

B/V/W C/Z D/T G/J/Y Silent H K/Q L/R S/X Vulgarity Other connotations
 * 1) Benta-, Venta-, Wenta-
 * 2) Vessa-, Wessa-
 * 1) Zenti- (can be turned into a redirect)
 * 2) Zinqua- (Cinqua- has already been deleted)
 * 1) Denta-, Tenta-
 * 1) Genta-, Jenta-, Yenta-
 * 2) Genti-, Jenti-, Yenti-
 * 3) Getta-, Jetta- (a Volkswagen car)
 * 1) Enta-, Henta-
 * 2) Etta-, Hetta-
 * 3) Henti- (Enti- has already been deleted)
 * 4) Hinqua-, Inqua-
 * 1) Kara-, Qara-
 * 1) Lara-, Rara-
 * 1) Sessa-, Xessa-
 * 1) Nica-
 * 2) Nici-
 * 3) Pica-
 * 4) Pici-
 * 1) Anti-
 * 2) Cynti-
 * 3) Ussa-

--109.40.3.91 11:40, January 17, 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think Joyce designed his extension to the SI prefixes with practicality in mind. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:10, January 17, 2018 (UTC)

Vaughn's Numbers
Vaughn's numbers shouldn't be deleted because you shouldn't need sources for a new number. 100.10.62.240 00:51, January 23, 2018 (UTC)


 * There is a rule which states you do need a source however, otherwise the Wiki is liable to be filled with poorly made numbers

Ancient Roman numerals
User:Edwin Shade nominated the redirect from the ancient Roman numeral ↂ for 10,000 for deletion. What about the redirect from the ancient Roman numeral ↁ for 5,000? --109.40.2.30 17:48, January 29, 2018 (UTC)