 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
 | Text and/or other creative content from 1387 (number) was copied or moved into 1000 (number) with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Notability
editI previously nominated this article (1387 (number)) for deletion, and it was pointed out that it should have been merged, instead. The merge has now been reversed. I don't think there's anything notable about the number which is not already in 1000 (number)#1250–1499. Previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Deletion nominations for numbers 1387 and 3571. Comments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I would prefer redirecting it, not seeing any content worth saving. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. However, I think {{merge}} is the appropriate tag. We don't have {{redirect to}}. I think WP:BRD should have left it deleted, but with Gandalf's opinion that it should be a separate article, we need a discussion section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think discussion is appropriate. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agree. However, I think {{merge}} is the appropriate tag. We don't have {{redirect to}}. I think WP:BRD should have left it deleted, but with Gandalf's opinion that it should be a separate article, we need a discussion section. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think the properties quoted for this number means it just scrapes over the notability bar set by WP:NUMBER, so the article should be kept. However, I am happy to go with a consensus to delete or redirect if this is established after a reasonable opportunity for discussion. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's pretty far below the bar, but I am likewise happy to go with consensus. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- No-one else seems to want to keep the article, so I withdraw my objection to redirect or deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
So as the consensus went, I have merged it. extra999 (talk) 08:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)