User blog comment:PsiCubed2/Let's Bring this to vote, shall we?/@comment-3427444-20170625080751/@comment-30754445-20170625200514

First of all, thanks for chiming in, Denis.

It seems that my statement was misunderstood. The problem as I see it is not that "there are a lot of articles". The problem is not quantity, but (a) quality (of the articles) and (b) notability.

And I'm not speaking about "revolutional reorganization". I am suggesting that we stop making new articles in this format. Or at the very least, limit the creation of such articles to projects which are only ongoing (Saibian's closed list of Hyper-E numbers for example). Anything to stop this snowball from going any further. Yes, I am quite alarmed at the prospect of eventually having millions of articles which say nothing more than "this is number X which was named by Y".

Alternatively, if the community decides that snowballing is fine, then we should stop deleting articles for numbers like 101 and 300. Surely "three hundred" deserves its own article no less than "Dustaculated-tethritertethracross"? Why should we disallow "3x102" yet allow "fε ε ζ₀ (100)" (in Saibian's hierarchy)? Both are compound names for numbers. And we actually have quite a few things to say about "300", which is more than can be said for the vast majority of the googolisms currently in the mainspace.

As for giving the creators the respect they deserve: I fully agree. That's why we should have an article titled "Denis Maksudov" as well as a detailed high-quality article explaining your number naming system. That would be showing respect (unfortunately I'm not well-versed enough in wiki formatting to create quality articles from scratch). Thousands of stubs which say pretty much nothing - not so much.

Besides, where's the pride in being in a "club" whose sole criteria is to have your own website? Your naming system deserves recognition because it is smart and elegant and original - both in the idea and the execution. It should be displayed in a place which has some quality standards, and not in a place where any 7-year old can post his friend's stuff as long as that friend has a website.

(and no, there is no similar situation on the regular wikipedia. Try making wikipedia articles on random bits of trivia, and see how quickly it gets deleted. Even if the source is very notable. Can you imagine how wikipedia woud look, if every quote by Einstein - say - had its own article? Wikias have notability criteria, and they have them for a reason)