Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kei (integer)

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. Protonk (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kei (integer)

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

Non-notable number. Is there a reason why an article on this number exists, but none of the other numbers at Chinese numerals#Large numbers, Japanese numerals#Large numbers and Korean numerals#Numerals (億, 兆, 京, 垓, 秭, 穰, 溝, 澗, 正, 載)? Do we need an article on every single Chinese/Japanese/Korean number, all the way from 一，二，三，四，五 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) all the way to 载 (10⁸⁰)? And is there any reason why the Japanese reading of the Chinese character 京 is used as the article title, when the Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese readings are just as valid and significant? Wikipedia is WP:NOT Wiktionary (which already has a page at wikt:京), nor an indiscriminate source of information. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 16:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - already mentioned in Chinese numerals, Japanese numerals and Korean numerals. Does not merit its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gandalf61; nothing to merge. Owen× ☎ 00:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gandalf61. I note that large powers of ten do not generally have their own article, and (in spite of the article title) this article is about the numeral, not the integer. As such, the material should be discussed in articles on number systems (and it already is). -- 202.124.73.85 (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the relevant numeral system articles. This seems notable as a fact about some east Asian languages. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:35, 13 July 2011 (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.