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 was Keep. - Bobet 23:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research, lack of verifiability, not an encyclopedic topic. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator suggests Delete: because:

• Although a few of the names mentioned, "jillions," "bazillions," etc. undoubtedly have some kind of real existence, the article is not about particular names, but about a concept. As written, it reads as a personal essay and original research. It is reasonable enough as far as it goes, but it is not a distillation and synthesis of well-known, published material from reliable sources. In fact it cites no sources at all for the body of the article. Nothing suggests that "indefinite and fictitious large numbers" is a coherent concept about which there is a body of published material.
• The list of names is questionable, mixing up familiar names like kajillion and bazillion with unfamiliar ones for which no source is given, without distinction. The list of names is an invitation to contribute original coinages, small-group in-jokes, personal locutions, and things made up in school one day. There's no attempt to separate the "real" ones (informal and jocular but widespread) and the "made-up" ones (limited to small groups of acquaintances). AHD4 does have entries for zillion, and gazillion," and perhaps others, but you wouldn't know it from this article.
• Some of the information in the article appears to be inaccurate, which, together with lack of references, confirms an impression that there's been little research. For example, it says that "zillions" "seriously" refers to "all the possible -illions" (i.e. the collection of all number names ending in -illion). It's unsourced, I couldn't quickly find any reference that says this, and AHD4 defines "zillion" merely as: "Informal An indeterminately huge number."

I am frankly unsure whether it is is utterly impossible to write an encyclopedic article on this topic, but this one isn't, and it isn't the start of one. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article does however include three good sourced examples of numbers of this kind in popular culture: the Consumer Reports children's magazine, the New Zealand auction website, and the Calvin and Hobbes example. Two of them are already included in Zillion though, and would not be lost if the article were deleted. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would recommend a category with such a name if one doesn't already exist. --Ben Houston 14:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be a step in the wrong direction, because it would require a separate article for each possible word that could be used to denote an indefinite large number. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. For a project where every word gets its own article, see Wiktionary. Uncle G 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - then I vote keep on the article and suggest that one append a "cleanup" tag to it since its quality is inferior. If this is the best solution -- a centralized article on ficitious and indefinite numbers. It will stop the cycle of article creation and deletion and it does give a base, not a great one, but a base to build upon. --Ben Houston 15:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• For prior discussion on this subject, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Squillion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazillion. Uncle G 14:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note when reading the prior discussions that this article was the one at Zillion until it was moved to this title on 2006-05-30. Uncle G 14:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move back to Zillion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nom argues cogently and pursuasively. With regards to AfD nominations, oh si sic erat omnium! Batmanand | Talk 15:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Numerao 16:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk)

22:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This page is cool! It's FICTION so what could you expect from it? A bunch of logic? I don't think so. DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE!DO NOT DELETE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.81.249.112 (talk • contribs) 00:53, July 11, 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It's not perfect, but it is a good start. Kaldosh 09:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can see myself typing "kajillion" or even "gajoogol" in the search box, but "indefinite and fictitious large numbers"? Anton Mravcek 15:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Other pages redirect to this one, such as bajillion, so this serves as a hub, since most dont deserve their own article. Many pages have wierd names that nobody would type by accident, but have redirects from the ones people would think of. Kaldosh 08:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep — The topic of numerical hyperbole is somewhat interesting, at least to me, but the page clearly needs cleanup and references. — RJH (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as above. --Merovingian {T C @} 00:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep the simple fact is this is a legitimate search, and the numbers are obviously relevant in a "non-existant" sort of way.--130.20.62.217 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as stated above. Throw 02:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I would rather have this and all the relevant redirects than stubs on each of these terms, as Anton Mravcek suggests. Septentrionalis 02:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was searching for gazillion and found this - it's good to find at least a little bit inside a maybe not perfect article than finding nothing. Maybe one could add to the article that it's not based on scientific facts but on experience/observance/etc. caliacave, 08:14 13 July 2006
  • Comment I don't know why, but I haven't seen many articles which have unsourced statements, even if they are useful. Often things get deleted because of it. Such as List of sexual slurs (A good example of a page that has edits undone without hesitation) It would be nice to find out a meaning for it, even if nobody reliable can prove it and analyse it myself.Kaldosh 06:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a good start at an article. I have added some citations. The term zillion for the number names ending in illion appears to be from Conway & Guy's BOOK OF NUMBERS (ch. 1, "Millions, Billions, and other Zillions".) Spacepotato 00:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Encyclopedic information, should be kept separate from other numeric entries. Seems likely to be a search term. -- dcclark (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Kind of marginal, but looks like an OK article. Herostratus 19:11, 16 July 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.