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 all. W.marsh 19:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other names of large numbers[edit]

Note to closing admin: I request that the votes I have changed to a small font are not counted, as the accounts are too new or probable sock puppets.

Note to closing adimin: The following redirect should also be deleted

• Infinityscrapers
• Infinityscraper
• Infinity scraper
• Infinity scrapers
• Xonillion
• Attillion
• Picillion
• Micrillion
• Femtillion
• Myrillion

I believe this article is hopeless, all the verified stuff is in names of large numbers, this is just made up by the collective consciousness of anonymous editors. —Ruud 02:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been able to track the names down to the following websites and blogs, which all clearly indicate this is original research.

• -Illion Numbers
• Infinity Scrapers
• A Fuga Really Big Numbers
• Very big numbers
• Weblog
• Big Number List
• AskNSDL
• BIG NUMBERS

—Ruud 00:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom :p —Ruud 00:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's not all made up. Many of those are actual real names coined by actual mathematicians, for instance "Mega". Science3456 02:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per nom.[reply]
  • Vandal, sock puppeteer, sock puppet of User:Fargo3455. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind providing some sources, so I can move the verified ones to names of large numbers? Cheers, —Ruud 02:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article was actually split from the names of large numbers list, as it was too long. This article was created for extremely large numbers, larger than the ones found on names of large numbers. Robot32 02:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sock puppet of User:64.194.44.220. —Ruud 16:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • No it wasn't, this article was created as a dumping ground for the made up entries, not for even larger numbers. —Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robot32 (talk · contribs) just got blocked indefinitely for page-move vandalism. --Ixfd64 20:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Names of very large numbers. It's reasonable to split out this information from an article that's getting just a bit too large, but your current title sucks (sorry). Delete per Ruud. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 03:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was not split because names of large numbers was getting to large, but because we prefer to keep out articles verifiable and other names of large numbers isn't. —Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparantly it was split because names of large numbers was getting too large. If you check the history of this article, you'll see that it says by the originator "create to reduce size of 'Names of large numbers" Robot32 03:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • But if you read talk:names of large numbers you see it is used as a dumping ground for unverified information. 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - very interesting and a lot of work went into this. Renata 03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but that is not a valid reason to keep unverifiable information. —Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ups, sorry. I was looking at the wrong article. Delete. I tried to google a couple those long & big numbers and it provided only WP mirrors. Unverifiable. Fantasies. Renata 03:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Micrillion" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=micrillion&btnG=Google+Search appears on websites other than Wikipedia. There's a website called "-illion numbers" that contain many of those large numbers listed here. Robot32 04:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if verified. Delete per Ruud. Having given this page a second look, this is an obvious Original Research fork. Savidan 03:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which, as I said, this can't be. —Ruud 03:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and move to Names of very large numbers as proposed by George. Snowball Earth Hypothesis 03:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep if verified, per all of the above supporting viewpoints. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Delete per Ruud. Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 15:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Myrianonmillinoncentinovemnonagintillion? —Ruud 04:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Remohol 03:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. From the talk page for names of large numbers: "For fanciful extensions, use other names of large numbers." How about "For fanciful extensions, post it on your blog, not in an encyclopedia." --Karnesky 04:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Redirect to names of large numbers. 64.194.44.220 04:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandal. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep many of them are in fact found in other places besides this encyclopedia. Delete "Myrianonmillinoncentinovemnonagintillion" though as that's definitely fake, being so long. Richard F. 04:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep When asked how many strings there are in the universe, the answer is "a googillion". StarTrek 06:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is currently misleading, as it is a mix of fact and neologisms / protologisms. The reader should be able to tell fact and fiction apart. E.g. list protological numbers on a clearly separate page and warn the reader clearly, or list them in talk to await verification. Even if you made up a really cute GooGooGoo word in school today it shouldn't get listed in Wikipedia. Weregerbil 06:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well then please edit the page and delete the fiction! I don't know which of the terms are fictional. If you do, then you could help us out by giving us a purely factual article that we can then evaluate and assess more accurately. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is Names of large numbers not the version of the article where the non-verifiable entries have been removed? I don't need to do it, it has already been done? Is there a number that is missing from Names of large numbers that is being endorsed by a reputable source? Weregerbil 08:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what kind of article has "other" in the name? — ciphergoth 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if anyone finds reasonable reasons (references!) to include some of this information in wikipedia, move it to Names of large numbers. The rest must go. The "lot of work" that went into this seems to be the kind of work we call "original research". Honestly, I find it difficult to understand where all the "Keep"s come from. To those who voted "Keep", is it because you know substantial parts of this article are correct and relevant, or is it just because you think it would be fun if it was? If you know it's true, by all means add your references!--Niels Ø 14:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to names of very large numbers. "Other" should not be in the start of a title. Car salesman 14:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

• • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All the verifiable information is in names of large numbers. Superm401 - Talk 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a fork of very large numbers, which as stated above contains the verifiable ones. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete after all verifiable numbers have been added to very large numbers. Ziggurat 23:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Shoppers 23:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the real/useful ones are at Names of large numbers. The rest are either non-notable inventions and/or numbers that really follow the naming system of numbers too far. - Bobet 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC
• Keep don't see any particular need to delete. Fargo3455 03:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account to new; probable sock puppet of User:Science3456. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to names of large numbers Terizmo 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. 169.157.229.69 15:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote to Delete per nom.[reply]
  • Account too new. Removed JzG's vote. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Delete. It's basically a POV fork of names of large numbers, whereby names that are not verifiable, probably because they were invented or made up in school one day, are thrown into another article. No thanks. Stifle 16:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; the article title hints at its inappropriateness..."Other (Something we already have)" is a subset of articles we do not need. Carlossuarez46 22:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 64.192.107.242 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Account too new. —Ruud 03:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while this article is fun to read, it is mostly original research. --Ixfd64 03:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should have been done long ago. Septentrionalis 06:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research, neologisms, etc., etc. Any real names of numbers should be in Names of large numbers. Possibly Knuth's "Extended Myriadic" scale might be used, if he Knuth actually used it. Even if it's a neologism, if it's his, it may be acceptable. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knuth's naming scheme is already documented at Knuth -yllion. —Ruud 14:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That artical is also disputed. I haven't checked out the references to see if the dispute is justified. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fork containing unverified material. Kusma (討論) 13:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOR. --C S (Talk) 12:16, 18 February 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.