Wikipedia:Archived articles for deletion discussions/2004 June 3

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of many pages.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The results of these debates were to delete the relevant articles.

Please do not edit this page.

Trollgnaw

4 hits on Google, term idiosyncratic, apparently used by 1 person. Maximus Rex 20:46, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly with a rename - the term may be ideosyncratic, but the concept is real. Mark Richards 21:12, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- There already exists troll organization, however some people feel the need to push "Trollgnaw" as a separate page. Maximus Rex 22:45, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect to troll organization. - Hephaestos|§ 22:49, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, this has gone through VfD and consensus then was to delete. It appears to have been re-created. RickK 22:58, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- precedent as in law does not apply to wikis IMHO; since apparently not all community members saw the former debate; there are multiple edits now; perhaps the article would have survived if renamed? -- Waveguy 03:32, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are seriously mistaken. Precedent in Wikipedia is that if a page has gone through the VfD process and consensus was to delete, if it is re-created, it is to be deleted on sight. RickK 19:10, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as idiosyncratic. Only known users of the term are User:Leo Trollstoy and a single anonymous Haligonian. —No-One Jones 03:51, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: idiosyncratic. No need for a redirect. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:15, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- No need for a redirect unless people keep insisting on going against consensus and re-creating it, no. - Hephaestos|§ 19:17, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's seriously misleading for us to suggest that this is a term in actual use. - Nunh-huh 22:58, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Slashdot-ism, delete. Wyllium 23:46, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no redirect. Neologism that nobody uses. -Sean 00:18, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not commonly used. Andris 22:50, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

Trigintillion

Can anyone explain in detail the reason trigintillion was put on Vfd?? 66.32.142.216 23:18, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can help. The following are all, AFA I can see made up names for numbers. They score circa 145 hits on google: Trigintillion - Quindecillion - Tredecillion - Quattuordecillion. Alarmingly there about about 100 more of them, each with more zeros and less use than the last. If we have to have them at all, could we have them on a single page with redircts from the discrete page to the common page. For now could we delete these dubious additions. See http://www.io.com/~iareth/bignum.html for background: "As can be seen, there is neither a single definition for these words nor a consistent means of deriving them ... "Using the rules described above" the author goes on to 'invent' some of the above. --Tagishsimon 23:19, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I had, in fact heard of trigintillion and the decillions up to quattuordecillion before. They're legitimate enough. But I agree on Tagishsimon's proposal. Dpbsmith 23:33, 19 May 2004 (UTC) There is an article on large numbers already, but it doesn't yet have anything like a "list of number words ending in -illion" Dpbsmith 23:34, 19 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
These terms may not get very many hits, but whoever entered them did not make up the terms--I saw them at least fifty years ago in Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. They are legitimate terms. They could probably be combined into one page, if that's wanted. Oops, sorry I got this in the wrong order. Rsvk 23:36, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

See also Talk:Sexdecillion/Delete

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debates and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issues or the deletions should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.