Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Septenquinquagintillion

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 delete. Joyous 03:53, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Septenquinquagintillion

This already exists in Names of large numbers. It is not needed and is a waste of space and memory what with all its 0's. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to mentioned list if this number is any more significant than, say, 10¹⁷³ or other such number. If not then delete. That list can't include 10 to the power of every possible number. -R. fiend 21:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not an article. Wyss 00:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and edit out the wikilink for this term in the article section Names_of_large_numbers#Extensions_of_the_standard_dictionary_numbers. Courtland 01:56, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
• keep' and expand Yuckfoo 02:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete adds nothing its entry on the names of large numbers doesnt. I cant forsee this growing into anything more than a perm stub.  ALKIVAR™ 02:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Anyone who can't count to 58 probably shouldn't be writing articles about large numbers.

1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
  000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
  000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
  000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

is, of course, a sexquinquagintillion, not a septenquinquagintillion. Only off by a factor a thousand, no big deal.

• Delete for now for above reasons. --Ryan! | Talk 03:13, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It makes you wonder why anyone bothered to create this. DaveTheRed 03:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Apparently created to prove a point. See the new Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball section, which predates this article by a day and a few hours, and specifically mentions the term. —Korath (Talk) 03:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I dont see it becoming more than it is now. A definition. Tygar 03:33, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless someone can think of something interesting to say about the number, which I think is incredibly unlikely. - Mustafaa 08:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. When Wikipedia has this many articles we can recreate this article. Given the rate of article creation and the efficiency of VfD, this will probably be in a couple of months. --BM 19:39, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 10¹⁷⁴ = 2^578.015 so if the number of articles in Wikipedia doubled every day, it would take about one year and seven months to reach a septenquinquagintillion articles. If a disk drive can store 200 gigabytes and an average article consumes 2000 bytes then a disk drive can store 100 million articles, so this would require 10¹⁶⁶ = ten quattuorquinquagintillion disk drives, at a cost of approximately 10¹⁶⁸ = 1.0 quinquinquagintillion dollars. The world GNP is approximately 30000 billion U.S. dollars so that is about 3 * 10¹⁵⁴ world GNP's. If the entire world was willing to contribute its entire output to the project it could do so in 3 quinquagintillion years. If we rely on Wikimedia fundraisers it will take longer, so I suggest that Jimbo tell them to get started right away. (Counting on figures) Mumble... universe lifetimes... atomic radii... Archimedes and sand grains... Unless we can broaden the categories for speedy deletion, the VfD for a septenquinquagintillion-article Wikipedia will probably require something better than dialup. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Damn... -- Riffsyphon1024 21:53, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn nerdcruft. ComCat 02:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect. -Sean Curtin 06:06, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This number is simply not significant (sic) - I mean it's no more important mathematically than any other huge number. It's of no interest. Treborbassett 16:50, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Expand into a article with the formation of the word. Create articles for similar numbers! TAS 19:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Riiiiiiight....um why? DaveTheRed 00:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • There are <snip - ugen64> reasons why. TAS 12:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I challenge you to name 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of them. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I'd settle for even five good reasons to keep. Until then, delete. Jonathunder 21:44, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
• Delete. I suppose a redirect wouldn't hurt, but is someone seriously going to type in "Septenquinquagintillion"? Carbonite | Talk 21:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I just noticed that this number 10¹⁷⁴ has for some time been the number listed as the number of delete votes in the discussion on wether to delete the tally boxes on VfDs. Did that prompt the creation of this article or reflect it? -R. fiend 05:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It reflected it. It was my little joke. See the history; edit comment was "17:06, 9 Mar 2005 Dpbsmith (Updating tally in honor of recently-created article on 'Septenquinquagintillion')" Dpbsmith (talk) 14:14, 14 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.