Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1111111111

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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 - kept, could be merged somewhere - SimonP 22:36, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

1111111111

Non-notable. Neutralitytalk 03:05, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • A gathering of 200 people on an IRC channel does not warrant an entire encyclopedia article. Perhaps it could be mentioned in Unix epoch, so either merge or delete outright. Let's not hold this article to some lowered standard because it's about a geek subject and because it involves the network that hosts the Wikimedia IRC channels. --Slowking Man 03:06, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. gcbirzantalk 03:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It made the front page on slashdot, and I've heard it mentioned elsewhere. Jonathunder 03:08, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
    • After reading the arguments of other editors, I would like to change my vote. Merge with Unix time, perhaps under a "milestones" section, as was suggested below, and redirect. Jonathunder 20:58, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • Keep. ugen64 03:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not the gathering that warrants the article, but the fact that it was a momentous moment, that was noted and thus notable, so it should remain and be linked to from Unix epoch! --JavaWoman 03:12, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. It made Slashdot's front page, but adding it as a section in Unix epoch may be a good idea. --Ethethlay 03:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Ethethlay has only edited this and the page in question. --InShaneee 03:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This moment was very special. Something like this won't happen all the time. Tcwd
    • This page is all that Tcwd has edited. --InShaneee 03:32, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rhobite 03:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • A mention on Slashdot does not automatically mean we need an article. Delete unless prior or lasting notability is shown. —Korath (Talk) 03:20, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • The mention on Slashdot is not the primary reason to keep this article. It is a landmark. —Tcwd 03:27, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • But who decides that? Slashdot? People who like ones? --InShaneee 03:34, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this was a special time, and it deserves an article :) Needs to be wrote up a bit more though. TheJosher
  • Keep. At the very least, it achieved a quite high peak throughput. Diskspace is cheap, too. But it definately needs more content. --SamB 06:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: User's seventh edit. --InShaneee 22:05, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned on the talk page, I recommend a Merge and redirect to Unix epoch as Slowking Man says. Front page on Slashdot seems to establish this time as notable (so as not to suggest that any other times would suddenly warrent mention), but a whole article? There really isn't much to say other than it's a big, cool looking number, and there were a lot of people on IRC at the time. Give it its mention on the proper page, nothing more. --InShaneee 03:26, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge - I don't really see why this is important at all, but there is nothing that needs to be said in a separate article that can't be said on unix epoch. Adam Bishop 03:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to Unix time. The topic does not warrant a separate article. Zzyzx11 03:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable, not possibly encyclopaedic. At the absolute most it might warrant a mention on Unix time but even that's pushing it. Where's the article on 111111111? Or 11111111? --bainer 05:30, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • It's worth noting here that 111111111 and 11111111 would have occurred on Jul 09 1973 (17:11:51) and May 09 1970 (07:25:11), respectively. Wikipedia existed, and IRC was in such widespread use that it prompted such a widespread interested back then, yes? Xore 09:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Note: this is Xore's only edit. --InShaneee 21:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Who gives a frack? He made a comment, he didn't vote. gcbirzantalk 10:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • 010001000110010101101100011001010111010001100101. Concur with Thebainer; this is amusing, but I have no idea why it's being called a "landmark" or "momentous." android↔talk 05:34, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I really don't see how this is in any way notable. Bad socks! DaveTheRed 05:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. May I propose that if a voter votes merge, they at least indicate WHERE it's supposed to be merged into? RickK 06:16, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into unix time. My vote might not carry much weight, but its a voice non the less. If merged, possibly a list of intresting times & dates that will come out of repeditive numbers could be included. NeoThermic 07:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is as notable as Pi Day or any similar fundamentally meaningless yet aesthetically pleasing--to some--confluence of digits. Yes, there should be a 1234567890 as well. If consensus is not to keep, it could be merged into a List of digitally interesting dates or something (I'm not sure it belongs in Unix time). Demi T/C 08:20, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • I am in favor of merging to Unix time because it makes the information here more accessible. Radiant_* 10:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Unix time; a list of notable dates would make a reasonable section for that article. If it remains a separate article it should be renamed, since a page title that is just a number is always a year. Psmith 10:35, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; non-notable event. Psychonaut 10:51, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Squirtle or delete if that's not acceptable. The base ten number system is a deliberate raping of childrens' minds. --SPUI (talk) 11:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read WP:POINT. The existence of articles that you'd prefer deleted (in this case, anything pokemon-related) has no bearing on the discussion on an unrelated article. Radiant_* 12:00, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • Hah, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? I'm just "disrupting Wikipedia" to have a bit of fun! --SPUI (talk) 12:25, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • No, you're just a goatse troll.</personal attack> gcbirzantalk 06:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, merge into Unix time. - Vague | Rant 12:34, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wowie, a whole 200 people in an IRC channel. Can you believe none of the major news networks had it as their top story either? Ted Koppel, why hast thou forsken me? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:46, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia isn't only for things on the news you know.... Tcwd
      • Not necessarily, but a mention or two in some mainstream news sources would help to back up claims that the event was "momentous" or a "milestone". I was being a bit sarcastic about major news networks covering it, but a Google News search for "1111111111" currently brings no hits, so it seems even the niche/techie press have ignored it (save perhaps for Slashdot as claimed above). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:29, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
        • Less than 24 hours after the event, I think its a little hasty to be wrtiting it off as having no media coverage at all. Not all the technie news sources are updated daily, and google's indexing isn't instantaneous, even of those that are. Thryduulf 22:44, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge. -- 213.119.138.79's fifth edit.
  • Delete. Nothing notable here. Gamaliel 17:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Unix time Fawcett5 18:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into history section of Unix time. — RJH 18:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Unix time (note that Unix epoch is a redirect to Unix time). Create a 'milestones' section or somesuch. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • rm -f There is nothing important about this moment whatsoever. What makes it any different from, say, 1111111112 or 1096836582? Certainly 1048129200 is a much more important moment. Chris 20:27, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- uriber 21:22, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Unix time Thryduulf 22:09, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 1) Will anyone ever need to look this up? 2) Will this be relevant in 2 years? 3) Is the time 1111111111 different from the number 1111111111? 4) Is this information connected to any other concept in any special way? No. Interesting in passing, interesting if you were there, but no. Maybe that transcript should be linked to from Geek, however :-) -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 23:11, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
  • Delete and add a small note to Unix time about it. cesarb 23:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:53, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect with Unix time for reasons stated above. Article as it stands has no potential for growth. JRM 02:55, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete. In two weeks time this article won't be anywhere near as notable, and in a year I doubt anyone will care at all. Hedley 02:58, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Unix time  ALKIVAR™ 03:02, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into Unix time. This isn't as special as Pi Day. :-( Ghost Freeman 04:27, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.--Matteh (talk) 07:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic.Martg76 18:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivia with no potential that I can see to become an encyclopedia article. Maybe send to WikiNews? Rossami (talk) 07:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Rename, or Merge Maybe put this onto a technology part of wikipedia? bit89medieval
  • Merge to Unix time. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Unix time -- Lochaber 10:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Unix time. Let's face it. We celebrate December 31 and many other "trivial" days why not this one ? --Leopard 20:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Unix time, and send to Wikinews. --Silas Snider (talk) 00:26, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge or Delete Trampled 13:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Trivial. A mention on Unix time may be warranted. Carbonite | Talk 22:07, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to Decimal 1 Day. Sirkumsize 04:49, 26 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/1111111111&oldid=1137508568"