Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1,000,001

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 delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1,000,001

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable number. Fails WP:NUMBER. —teb728 t c 07:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As a second choice, redirect to Million#Select 7-digit numbers (1,000,000–9,999,999). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no evidence of significant coverage. sst ✈ 07:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 07:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete .... not really seeing much point to this article ..... We don't need articles on 1,000,001, 1,000,002, 1,000,003 etc etc, Plus it fails GNG anyway. –Davey2010^Talk 12:44, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Here's a couple of sources: [1], [2]. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both sources are passing mentions, and anyways the passages basically say "(n+1)!+2, (n+1)!+3, ... (n+1)!+n+1 are n consecutive non-prime numbers" with n=1,000,000 by "random" choice. I am pretty sure the same point is made with n=1000 or 2016 or 10^2016 in the meaning of "any large number", so hardly evidence on notability. Tigraan (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Just posted the sources for people's perusal; hence the comment rather than !vote. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can imagine an argument that this number might be more significant because the phrase "a million and one" (or, less often, "one million and one") is a common expression, used in book titles, song lyrics, and the like. (For example, Yvonne DeVaney's song "A Million and One" produced hit singles in 1966 for Dean Martin, Vic Dana, and Billy Walker.[3][4][5][6]) I'm not sure if this ultimately results in added notability for the number, or if WP:NOTDICT takes care of it, but I added some search links above for others to consider. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some mentions are here but no sources featuring this topic as the subject. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At best, if "A Million and One" were a notable topic (or even a notable dab) then this could redirect to it. As a number, it's not encyclopedic. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and do not disambiguate, just to be explicit. There are no topics to disambiguate; they would be found at a million and one or one million and one (note that they are redlinks) and this is not a synonym for "a million to one" (that would be 1,000,000:1). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- This is a mildly relevant entry, in my opinion. "A million and one" is a common expression of low chances where I'm from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escaper2 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 13 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

(Moved above !vote from the AFD talkpage). –Davey2010^Talk 01:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Could you find a source for that, or tell us (approximatively) where you live? (Do not disclose personal info if you do not wish to.) Tigraan (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until and unless "a million and one" is demonstrated to be a colloquial term or of cultural importance (see WP:NUMBER). Note that this is different from "one million to one". Having one famous song titled like this does not lend the number itself much notability (but it pollutes online search results).

This was apparently prodded and denied by creator, but I cannot say I feel compelled by their explanation. Tigraan (talk) 09:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. And a {{trout}} to the article creator for citing Yahoo! Answers. I agree with the others that this is not notable. "A million to one" is different, and there isn't much reason to think that we need a disambiguation page under this title. The textbooks cited are trivial mentions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find any reliable sources to substantiate the notability of this number. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Sources that mention the use of "a million and one" as an example of hyperbolic or figurative speech include this linguistics book [7] and a page from Oxford Dictionaries [8]. In addition to the much-recorded song mentioned above, another example in the title of a (probably) notable work is A Million and One Nights: A History of the Motion Picture, a 1926 landmark of early film history by Terry Ramsaye. The similar usage of "a thousand and one" is covered at 1001 (number) and is also mentioned at Indefinite and fictitious numbers, where a mention of this number might be added as well. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or change to DAB. The idiomatic usage and the fact that it is a palindromic number are not quite enough for WP:NUMBER. A disambiguation page for the songs and other works that use this title might not be unwarranted, though. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2016 (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.