- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was Delete. Merge is unnecessary as all the relevant content here is already in 10000 (number). Deathphoenix ʕ 16:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as an A7 speedy which fails for two reasons. First, A7 only goes for people. Second, being a factorial is an assertion of notability. Therefore, I am bringing this here, and would have voted keep had there been any more content. There isn't so I'm abstaining for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable number. See also 362880 (number) and 3628800 (number). Merely happening to be a factorial isn't notable; there are potentially an infinite number of numbers which happen to be factorials. Tonywalton | Talk 13:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Any credit for happening to be the number of minutes in February? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only three-quarters of the time. Tonywalton | Talk
- No, three-quarters minus one one-hundredth plus one four-hundredth. Delete per the WikiProject Numbers guidelines. Barno 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, three-quarters plus one one-hundredth minus one four-hundredth. I agree though, that is thin. I land on delete as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, three-quarters minus one one-hundredth plus one four-hundredth. Delete per the WikiProject Numbers guidelines. Barno 19:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only three-quarters of the time. Tonywalton | Talk
- Delete There is a proof somewhere there are no uninteresting integers--something along the lines that after you remove all the interesting integers, then you must have a smallest and largest unintersting number, which are therefore interesting, etc. The same could be proven in the opposite direction I dare say. This just isn't... notable. ES2 14:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While a very interesting number, that it has its own article seems kind of numbercrufty to me. Kuzaar 14:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to 10000 (number), where it is already mentioned. — RJH 19:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all/Redirect all to 10000 (number), 100000 (number), and 1000000 (number). Melchoir 22:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per RJH. ShootJar 21:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.