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)