- 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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#A10 of six nines in pi, not a plausible redirect. — Kusma ( talk) 15:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Pi whole number
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Pi whole number ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pi (first 100000 digits) and other such discussions, but worse, as Pi is infinite and the "whole" pi is impossible (so not a good redirect either). Fram ( talk) 12:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 12:28, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The article says what it is except not really. IT was created today so I highly doubt it's notable whatsoever so I will say delete. ― Blaze Wolf TalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:17, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. It's gibberish, maybe a feeble joke, by someone who didn't understand, or maybe didn't even know about, the proof that pi is transcendental. Even if it were true that pi had that exact value the article would be just an assertion, with no sources and no evidence. Athel cb ( talk) 15:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, but for pure interest have a look first at just how many things are wrong with the article. If pi were genuinely rounded to the nearest Whole number it would be 3, and even the wikilink provided, for those who'd like to know about pi, goes to a page that doesn't have a link to pi... it's quite an achievement for such a short and pointless article to reach such a state. Elemimele ( talk) 16:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, there is so much to say that it's hardly worthwhile. I thought it might the work of a very inexperienced editor, but in fact Booklover834 has been around since 31st December 2021, has made plenty of edits and created some pages. Athel cb ( talk) 17:24, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete This could fall under G1, G2 or G3 depending on the intentions of the editor that created it, but clearly shouldn't be here Dexxtrall ( talk) 18:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Comment - While there is no interesting content in this TNT-worthy article, I note that there have been notable attempts to approximate pi by whole numbers. In principle I could see a case for a redirect. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:39, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- 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.