Googology Wiki
Googology Wiki

Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labelled for deletion.



I think that the redirect 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000Googol should be deleted, because it doesn't fit into Special:Allpages. -- 09:32, December 28, 2013 (UTC)

Who will write 100...00 (100 zeroes) instead of googol in title? Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 10:39, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
How about a following rule: every redirect starting at a number more than 20 digits long should be deleted if a number has more compact name. Do you agree with that? LittlePeng9 (talk) 16:09, December 28, 2013 (UTC)
Seconded. These hundred-digit redirects are ridiculous and of no use. FB100Ztalkcontribs 10:31, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
  • psst* If a number with more than 20 digits doesn't have a compact name, then its decimal expansion wouldn't be a redirect at the first place. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 11:09, December 29, 2013 (UTC)
OMG I will eat you Cloudy! (Wat this?) 08:53, December 11, 2014 (UTC)
I think the redirect should stay. Has it ever harmed anybody?? No! Leave it as an "easter egg" to people who are new to the wiki. Eners49 (talk) 13:12, June 23, 2018 (UTC)Eners49

Matthew's Function shouldn't be deleted

This is the main source of my function. What can I do to add sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubby3 (talkcontribs) 16:58, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

You have to publish your notations in external source, e.g. on Google Sites. LittlePeng9 (talk) 17:06, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

I think we can keep mattthew's function, when The author puts an external link and defines it in english —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antares.I.G.Harrison (talkcontribs) 11:13, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

If someone takes their time to write a quality article about this function, I won't delete. I don't want on this wiki a notation based almost solely on few examples. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:35, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
There is no definition, those examples are the definition. I vote keep. Wythagoras (talk) 12:47, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
Btw, Peng, do you want to delete the BEAF article? Wythagoras (talk) 12:47, February 8, 2015 (UTC)
BEAF article has at least historical reasons to stay. If it was some new notation defined in a way it is, I probably would want to delete it as well. Beyond that, my main point with wanting to delete Matthew's function is the quality issue, and the fact that the definition can be fixed without a bigger problem if one took their time. LittlePeng9 (talk) 12:58, February 8, 2015 (UTC)

Just delete this page Bubby3 (talk) 20:11, October 17, 2016 (UTC)

I think Utter Oblivion should not be deleted!

I just wrote a page called Utter Oblivion,and it was quickly labeled as a candidat for deletion.

I made the page respectably and I put the sources this time,so I do not see a reason for it to be deleted.

If someone thinks it should get deleted,than tell me and I will correct myself.

                                                                                                      Boboris02 (talk) 17:10, October 4, 2016 (UTC)Boboris02Boboris02 (talk) 17:10, October 4, 2016 (UTC) 

Functions that can compute numbers from any functions with n symbols is illdefined. AarexWikia04 - 17:37, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

Well...,that`s how it was defined in the source.

Jonathan Bowers,himself said it.I did not add anything that wasn`t clearly stated in the original article.

                                                                                                 Boboris02 (talk) 18:05, October 4, 2016 (UTC)Boboris02Boboris02 (talk) 18:05, October 4, 2016 (UTC) 

I don't think this article should be deleted, as the same way the article for Oblivion isn't deleted. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 02:00, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

Googology Course

Googology Course should not be deleted. It is a great way to learn googology. It tell you what order you learn everything. It's helpful and should not be deleted. Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC) 22:58, January 30, 2017 (UTC)‎

It has no sources. Every article must source something and link to it. So it has to be. Username5243 (talk) 23:13, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

It has a source. Check it. Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC) 23:29, January 30, 2017 (UTC)‎

Yes, but it isn't linked Username5243 (talk) 23:37, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

It has a source. Check again Nathan da' R. 11:52, January 31, 2017 (UTC) 00:07, January 31, 2017 (UTC)‎

I see what you are getting at. What I mean is, usually the source is linked directly (that is, a URL is added with a link to the source). That page does not have that. This is necessary to show the source can be reached. Username5243 (talk) 00:09, January 31, 2017 (UTC)

There is no rules that a souce has to be linked (most books can't be linked, for example), so I don't think that's a valid reason for deletion. However, I suggest the page's deletion for a different reason: The page appears to be promotional in tone. The first thought when I saw the page was created is that to move it to userspace, which I did. The creator did further edits to that page, meaning they are aware of the page move; until the issue is fixed, it's best left at the userspace. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 02:04, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
I didn't rellay mean for it to be a promotion. I wrote it just for fun and it's 100% free. If anyone wanted access to it, I would be happy to give it to them.
Just because it's free doesn't invalidate the claim that the article promotes it, or at least very much looks like it does.
Regarding the source, I'd say that a problem with it is that it is unverifiable. A Google search doesn't give any results. If you could have the (unfinished, or wait until it's finished) course uploaded and available somewhere, I would say there wouldn't be a problem with it. LittlePeng9 (talk) 14:55, January 31, 2017 (UTC)
I agree with LP. Normally source is something that is published. It is not published yet. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 18:22, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

I have decided to delete this article for now. Feel free to edit the page on your user space, but I would kindly request for you to not recreate the mainspace article, until you have some freely accessible source for it. Once you do, I think it would also be for the best if you left creating this article to us, so that we can write it in a more objective manner (see also this part of our Wiki's policy). LittlePeng9 (talk) 18:30, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

clouds! ⛅ 02:00, October 5, 2016 (UTC)


Megafugatwelve (and Megafugathirteen) should not be deleted.

I do not know how to add sources to a wiki article, but Megafuga-x is a pretty well known name for x↑↑x. One source (among many) for this fact: —Preceding unsigned comment added by PsiCubed2 (talkcontribs)

To add sources to an article, just put <ref>[URL Nameofpage]</ref>, and then make a sources section that contains <references/>. Username5243 (talk) 20:57, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

This source (and suppose neither do others) doesn't list this explicit number. Unless you point one which mentions Megafugatwelve, this article lacks references. Also worth noting that we have an article for megafuga- prefix. LittlePeng9 (talk) 21:08, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
Why should that matter? It's a large number that has a name, and the source confirms that this name is the correct one for this number.
You could argue that since the case of x=12 wasn't specifically mentioned anywhere, then it doesn't meet the "notability" criteria for a main-space article. But is it really less notable then, say, "Trihemoth-Giant-turreted-territethrateron" (a number which even Saibian himself didn't bother to give any kind of description for)? Or numbers by Aarex and Denis and Username5243, which no-one outside our little community knows anything about?
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for allowing all these numbers in the mainspace of the wiki. As long as they are well defined, have an outside source, and are relevant to googology - why not? I'm simply saying that disallowing megafugatwelve while allowing all these other rnumbers doesn't make much sense.
(by the way, the previous unsigned comment was me. Forgot to sign it. Sorry) PsiCubed2 (talk) 22:53, April 6, 2017 (UTC)
My understanding of citation rules here is that every number article needs a reference which defines, or at least mentions, the specific number explicitly. Just because the number can be defined in a particular manner is not yet a reason to include it here. This has nothing to do with notability. LittlePeng9 (talk) 06:20, April 7, 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for your understanding of the citation rules? ;-)
As far I know, there are no citation rules here - yet. And quite frankly, I find the specific rule you are proposing to be absurd. In what way is megafugatwelve any less "canonical" a number then megafugaseven? Is our a wiki an actual reference for the world of large numbers, or a stamp-collection of the stuff people list on their websites?
Also, according to this proposed rule, if someone makes a website with nothing but a list of thousands of random number names, all these numbers would suddenly be eligible for the mainspace here. Even if they were all things like "one million three hundred and seventy two thousand two hundred and fifty one" and none of them contained any explanations for why the number is listed. Does this makes sense to you?
As Sabiis Saibian said a few months ago, this community has to answer some hard questions regarding the purpose of this wiki. It doesn't really matter what these answers are. The important thing is to have a set of consistent guidelines which serve an agreed-upon prupose. PsiCubed2 (talk) 08:22, April 10, 2017 (UTC)

Best Idea for a Notation Ever

Please remove the deletion candidate tag from my page "Best Idea for a Notation Ever". I also really don't like how the reason given was just "Seriously?" That is criticism and he claims he put the tag because of his opinion on it. If no one wanted to read that, they really didn't have to. It didn't contain anything disrespectful, and if you don't know, it's a joke. It's a disrespectful way to force your criticism onto me when I am not affecting anyone. Also, I made it as a general article because I was making a page on a notation that was already invented. You need to learn to respect other people's opinions(As long as they aren't affecting you in a morally wrong way), and you guys take things too seriously. Come on, just have fun and crack a harmless joke once in a while, instead of being robots employed by a type over 9000 civilization to develop their language of FOST! 2607:FB90:983D:D1BE:1509:FD7B:F460:1F3A 23:23, August 10, 2017 (UTC)

This is the Googology Wiki. The purpose of a wiki page is not for you to present your ideas, but instead for people to be informed about what is going on in modern-day Googology. As an alternative, put your ideas on your blog. It just doesn't belong on a Wiki page. Nathan Richardson "Simon Weston" 19:47, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

He can't. In case you didn't notice, he is an anonymous user, and I'm fairly confident his user account got banned last month. So that was his only choice.

@AFU:: My "Seriously?" was in response to you coming back as a sock puppet. I knew who you are, and I know you got banned. So don't try to get around the ban. It's that simple.

In any case, it seemed Cloudy decided to put this as a subpage to his "Department of bubbly negative numberottles" (which I guess is where funny stuff that was made in main space but shouldn't be there goes). Username5243 (talk) 20:25, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

I agreed. Googleaarex (talk) 20:35, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Category:Orders of symmetric groups

“This category is exactly the same as the category of factorial numbers.”

But the Category:Factorial numbers contains also numbers such as Expofaxul, which are not the order of any symmetric group. -- 16:43, September 3, 2017 (UTC)

Because expofaxul is exponential factorial, and these numbers are multiplicational factorials. Alpha-ketoacid (talk) 12:40, August 30, 2018 (UTC)


Since there are two facts with different categories, it should be kept. -- 17:22, January 4, 2018 (UTC) 00:25, January 11, 2018 (UTC) I disagree with my page being labeled a candidate for deletion because my page is about a topic that is not my own and I added citations to the page.

Pages created by User:Zerimtam

The User:Zerimtam has been blocked for unsourced page creation. Can we delete Megafugafourteen, Megafugafifteen, Megafugasixteen, Megafugaseventeen, Megafugaeighteen, Megafuganineteen, and Megafugatwenty? I consent to delinking the deleted pages in my comment. -- 18:00, January 11, 2018 (UTC)

The pages should not exist until someone add some sources Yabuszko (talk) 18:11, May 19, 2020 (UTC)


For some pages starting with “Googovple-”, such as Googovplexvij, Googovplexix and Googovplexxi, we can’t find sources. Can we delete them? -- 19:45, January 11, 2018 (UTC)

Yes DrCocktor (talk) 01:25, June 21, 2018 (UTC)

Template proposal:Numberlink

… should be not deleted, but moved to Template:Numberlink (or a shorter name). -- 09:51, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

What is this template for? Do we really need this? Rpakr (talk) 09:59, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

It was used in 299792458, and can be used to shorten links to unnamed numbers with about 20 digits. -- 10:07, January 13, 2018 (UTC)

Substubs in the 700s range

Some user(s) has/have created substubs in the 700s range; namely, 701, 705, 706, 707, 708, 711, 712, 713, 716, 717, 718, 722, 723, 724, 725, 726 and 727. Can we delete these? I consent to delinking the deleted pages in my comment. -- 10:55, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

But we should keep the following pages for now:

  1. 700 (alphabetic numeral; commemorative coin);
  2. 702 (alphabet-related combinatorics);
  3. 703 and 710 (radio frequencies);
  4. 704 and 720 (TV picture resolution);
  5. 709 (parliament-related);
  6. 714 and 715 (Ruth-Aaron pair);
  7. 719 and 721 (DST-related);
  8. 728 and 729 (Smith brothers).

-- 11:02, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

As I said here , all articles should be relevant to gooology, so they should be deleted. Maybe we can keep the 700 article, but for me a number being a radio frequency or being related to parliament is not a good reason to keep the article. If the article is related to googology then it should be kept. (for example, a value of a googological function like 107 or having a name in googology like 405) Rpakr (talk) 13:23, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Or being used in googologisms like 666. Rpakr (talk) 16:59, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

I already turned 703, 704 and 710 into redirects. -- 13:37, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Since the Category:Numbers in metrology contains stubs, we need a page Numbers in metrology. And where should 719, 721, 743 and 745 go: a) to Calendar-related numbers or b) to Numbers in metrology? -- 13:41, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should create a page Unnamed numbers with multiple unrelated uses. -- 13:45, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Or should it be named Unnamed numbers with various unrelated uses? -- 15:30, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

We have a Category:Numbers in politics, but no page Numbers in politics. Can we create the latter? -- 13:55, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

If this page has been created, then 709, 3497 and 7228 should be turned into redirects. I added a fact about the concert pitch to 435. -- 14:05, January 16, 2018 (UTC)

Confusable proposed SI prefixes

Some proposed SI prefixes are too large or too small for any practical use, and can even be confused in some languages. In particular, I request the deletion of the following unsourced prefixes:


  1. Benta-, Venta-, Wenta-
  2. Vessa-, Wessa-


  1. Zenti- (can be turned into a redirect)
  2. Zinqua- (Cinqua- has already been deleted)


  1. Denta-, Tenta-


  1. Genta-, Jenta-, Yenta-
  2. Genti-, Jenti-, Yenti-
  3. Getta-, Jetta- (a Volkswagen car)

Silent H

  1. Enta-, Henta-
  2. Etta-, Hetta-
  3. Henti- (Enti- has already been deleted)
  4. Hinqua-, Inqua-


  1. Kara-, Qara-


  1. Lara-, Rara-


  1. Sessa-, Xessa-


  1. Nica-
  2. Nici-
  3. Pica-
  4. Pici-

Other connotations

  1. Anti-
  2. Cynti-
  3. Ussa-

-- 11:40, January 17, 2018 (UTC)

I don't think Joyce designed his extension to the SI prefixes with practicality in mind. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:10, January 17, 2018 (UTC)

Since both nica- and pica- are listed here, I request the former prefix to be kept, and the latter one to be restored. -- 19:57, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

But nici- and pici- are not listed on the same source. Therefore, I request the deletion of the former prefix, since the latter prefix has already been deleted. -- 20:00, February 6, 2018 (UTC)

Vaughn's Numbers

Vaughn's numbers shouldn't be deleted because you shouldn't need sources for a new number. 00:51, January 23, 2018 (UTC)

There is a rule which states you do need a source however, otherwise the Wiki is liable to be filled with poorly made numbers

-- Edwin Shade 00:57, January 23, 2018

Ancient Roman numerals

Edwin Shade nominated the redirect from the ancient Roman numeral ↂ for 10,000 for deletion. What about the redirect from the ancient Roman numeral ↁ for 5,000? -- 17:48, January 29, 2018 (UTC)

-- 18:08, January 29, 2018 (UTC)


Can we delete all the factorial numbers starting with lexx-? On [1], only lexexfa is listed. -- 12:23, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

And also all the factorial numbers starting with lexexv-? -- 12:28, February 4, 2018 (UTC)

I think there must be a direct mention of the number in order for the source to be applicable. However, I'm not sure if the rule has changed Nathan Richardson "Simon Weston" 14:51, February 4, 2018 (UTC)


Can we delete all the numbers of the form googol*kaidekaplex? In particular, the articles googoltriskaidekaplex, googoltetrakaidekaplex, googolpentakaidekaplex, googolhexakaidekaplex and googolheptakaidekaplex have no valid sources. And the deletion of googolundeciplex and googolduodeciplex also needs to be considered. -- 14:29, February 5, 2018 (UTC)

Seventy-sevens and Sixty-sixes

… should be kept, since they are found here. -- 16:09, February 8, 2018 (UTC)


Can we keep this article, or should we delete it? -- 13:39, February 22, 2018 (UTC)

-- 16:38, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

And what about Category:Numbers with radical 33? In Germany, radicalism is frowned upon, and “33” is also an abbreviation for the year, in which the bad part of German history begins. -- 19:40, March 27, 2018 (UTC)

You like to link mathematical things with unrelated things. Anyway, the category was deleted, but not for the reason you given on this page. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:34, March 28, 2018 (UTC)

-min-, Begiston, Eleventy-elevens, Twelvety-twelves

These four articles are numbers by André Joyce without valid sources, and have been created by Andrejoyce, so they must be deleted. -- 15:12, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

Pages created by Andrejoyce

Can we delete all pages created by Andrejoyce? I think that there is a rule against creation of articles without external sources, and a rule against adding their own numbers to Googology Wiki. -- 15:33, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

But the following pages should be kept:

  1. -dex
  2. -dhex
  3. -minex
  4. Booprovi
  5. Gaxoogol
  6. Gerigol
  7. Ghigol
  8. Givoogol
  9. Gogogirl
  10. Gogogogirl
  11. Gol
  12. Googom
  13. Googovi
  14. Gooprovi
  15. Gooprovij
  16. Lexexfa
  17. Little googol
  18. Quadrooprovi
  19. Trooprovi

The following pages should be merged:

  1. Cyplev
  2. Little bigger little googol

The following pages should be moved:

  1. Anti- (to Prefix 10^96)
  2. Fetta- (to Prefix 10^237)
  3. Kenta- (to Prefix 10^66)

The following redirects should also be kept:

  1. Googool (redirects to Gargoogol)
  2. Googoviji (redirects to 4294967296)
  3. Xova- (redirects to Prefix 10^27)
  4. Xovi- (redirects to Prefix 10^27)

And the following pages should be turned into redirects:

  1. Gogov (to 50)
  2. Gogovi (to 72)
  3. Gogovij (to 98)
  4. Inqua- (to Prefix 10^150)
  5. Menta- (to Prefix 10^60)
  6. Nica- (to Prefix 10^57)
  7. Oca- (to Prefix 10^54)
  8. Otta- (to Prefix 10^210)
  9. Qeda- (to Prefix 10^48)
  10. Rinda- (to Prefix 10^45)
  11. Sara- (to Prefix 10^120)
  12. Satta- (to Prefix 10^42)
  13. Weica- (to Prefix 10^30)
  14. Zenti- (to Hecto-)

I am not sure whether the following page can be kept:

  1. Googogoogol

I am also not sure whether the following pages can be kept:

  1. Zotta-
  2. Zotti-

If they are kept, then we should merge them to Prefix 10^255. -- 19:07, February 27, 2018 (UTC)

The following pages, which have been created by LegionMammal978, should also be deleted:

  1. Googoolxiv
  2. Googoocxex
  3. Googoocclvi

The following page, which has been created by ARsygo, should also be deleted:

  1. Googovplex

The following page, which has been created by LegionMammal978, should be moved:

  1. Googoocxexviji (to 2^2048, 256^256 or ²256)

-- 17:00, February 28, 2018 (UTC)

-- 18:15, March 1, 2018 (UTC)

The name “googoocxexviji” has no external sources, but its numerical value appears in the computation of mega.

-- 09:53, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

400000 and 750000000

According to Talk:Sechstelmillion, numbers with single-word names (i. e. not formed from two smaller numbers) in foreign languages, and sourced single-word fractions of -illion and -illiard numbers should be kept. -- 12:04, February 27, 2018 (UTC)

The creator of the pages ( added sources, after Rpakr nominated the pages for deletion. -- 12:28, February 27, 2018 (UTC)

The numbers are named Lehu and Dreiviertelmilliarde in Hawaiian and German, respectively. I created the redirects, and I think that the numbers should be moved to the foreign-language words, since the English translations “four hundred thousand” and “three quarters of a billion” aren’t that simple. -- 13:06, February 27, 2018 (UTC)


… should be kept, if this category is for numbers which are the result of a tetration with reasonably small base and polyponent. -- 08:48, March 2, 2018 (UTC)


… shouldn’t be deleted, but cleaned up, since it is listed here. -- 07:56, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Powers of 22

I nominated this category for deletion, because it was too small. Now, it contains only two pages; both are unsourced numbers. Can we delete it, and also the two unsourced numbers in it? -- 07:13, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Powers of 21 and Category:Powers of 122, and the unsourced numbers in them, should also be deleted. -- 07:27, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Powers of 10 with exponent not ending in a 0 or a 3

Should direct categorizing into Category:Powers of 10 be allowed instead? But then we shall exclude numbers with the endings -illiard, -illion and -yllion (which should go into the respective subcategories), as well as numbers of the form 1010n larger than a googolplex (to prevent inclusion of most Saibianisms) from it. -- 12:08, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, that's an interesting idea. I think they should indeed be directly categorized into powers of 10. The categories of prime exponent and squarefree exponents can be done away with. Cookiefonster (talk) 12:27, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

7920, 604800 and 17971200

… should be moved to Mathieu group M11, Janko group J2 and Tits group, respectively. -- 13:46, March 21, 2018 (UTC)


… should be kept, since it is listed here. -- 14:36, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Times Square categories

Can we delete all three Times Square categories? -- 19:41, March 21, 2018 (UTC)

Obsolete size categories

The categories Category:Numbers with 1000 to 4933 digits and Category:Numbers with 4933 to 1000000 digits have been deleted. But why are the unsourced numbers still in these categories? -- 21:22, March 22, 2018 (UTC)


… and similar titles need to be transwikied to -- 20:40, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

Only the first revision of each page I created today should be transwikied. -- 20:46, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

I created all affected titles on Can somebody delete all 16 pages with titles starting with “Inconsequent”? -- 09:10, May 12, 2018 (UTC)

May somebody start deleting these MilkyWay90 (talk) 21:41, June 12, 2018 (UTC)MilkyWay90

They were already deleted. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 15:16, June 13, 2018 (UTC)

Hamlet Monkey Number

Hi everybody, I saw that the article 'Hamlet Monkey Number' had become a candidate for deletion due to 'googology article ban'. Can someone please clarify what that means, because I think that article should stay on the wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eners49 (talkcontribs) 18:28, June 15, 2018 (UTC)

I think the ban should be lifted. It's been long enough. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 09:21, June 16, 2018 (UTC)


… should be deleted, since no valid googological use could be found. -- 09:02, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

I think that it should be turned into a redirect to Prime numbers. -- 10:10, August 14, 2018 (UTC)

Football-related numbers

Please delete 1866, 16772 and 19985, since the Nationalelf has been eliminated after the group stage. -- 16:01, June 27, 2018 (UTC)

Category:Lucas numbers

… can be kept, since I created a page Largest known Lucas prime. Any objections? -- 10:38, July 8, 2018 (UTC)

Now no longer a candidate for deletion. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:07, August 30, 2018 (UTC)


In June 19, 2018, Eners49 created the article Googolquadribang. At the bottom of the article, there was a paragraph reading:

Note to mods: Googolquadribang isn't explicitly stated on the page, but from looking at the googolbang, googoldubang, googoltribang, etc. pattern, we can clearly extrapolate the pattern and this was the number people most likely had in mind. So if you still want to delete this than can we at least discuss it on the candidate for deletion page?

Here's the reason I decided to delete the page despite the above. In early-mid 2012 (which I like to call the Made-up Number Era), people created a lot of articles for numbers that don't have sources, or aren't mentioned in the sources given. They are eventually deleted when an administrator returned from hiatus. Some of them are obvious extensions to existing googolisms (such as giggolquadriplex and giggolseptaplex, which are extensions to giggolplex and giggolduplex), yet they were deleted anyway because they don't have sources. I think this—the requirement of the name being mentioned in the source—still applies today (with a few exceptions such as the numbers named with the fuga- previx), and that's why I decided to delete the page. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 08:17, July 29, 2018 (UTC)


I don't think it makes since for 122 to be deleted just because it's a stub and it's not that relevant to googology.

I think this because there are several very similar pages that you could argue those things about that DON'T have the delete tag.

Just off the top of my head, there are 103, 106, and 115, and I'm sure there are dozens of pages like them.

So If none of them have the tag, Why should 122? 2601:142:2:EC49:84E:28D6:3668:15B 13:00, September 16, 2018 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. There are literally hundreds of other pages like this which aren't flagged for deletion yet this one is? Does anybody have a good reason for this? I mean Sbiis Saibian defined a large number as a number larger than 1. ubersketch📞 17:29, September 27, 2018 (UTC)

{10,100 (0,2) 2} & 10

Ginglapulus shouldn't be deleted, it has gingulus entries! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noogai93 (talkcontribs) 00:57, January 19, 2019 (UTC)

Please don't delete "Unsexigantacentillion"

I created the page Unsexagintacentillion a while ago and Googology Wikia bots and/or admins have now suppposedly listed it as a canditate for deletion. The reason was "No source".  However, "unsexagintacentillion" is a valid -illion number, plus this Youtube video and this webpage list it as an actual number. For these reasons, I do not agree that this article should be deleted.

Nirvana Supermind (talk) 08:29, July 8, 2019 (UTC)

Then why don't you add sources? It is an exact solution. The article has actually no sources accessible from the article itself.
p-adic 09:49, July 8, 2019 (UTC)

Infinite Layers

GoogolFan2000 (talk) 04:48, September 25, 2019 (UTC) Why exactly is the page for Infinite Layers on the chopping block? Are game links not considered sources? If that's the case, I don't know why that would be, since the best sources are often the original source material itself, in my opinion at least. If game links are adequate enough to count as a source, the Infinite Layers page should not be a candidate for deletion, as the page does indeed have a link to the game's GitHub page.  

The external link is added by Bubby3 (cf. history), but he perhaps forgot to remove the deletion tag then. Although I have not seen the link, you can remove the tag if it can be a source.
p-adic 05:42, September 25, 2019 (UTC)

What Happened?

I saw that (Vista Function)will be deleted? P-adic and Cloudy176, Could you tell me?

Why Vista Function Will Be Deleted?

P-adic and Cloudy176, Could you tell me?

Read the description in the deletion tag.
p-adic 09:47, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
I can tell you where I refered to Vista Function:
Mango523WNR (talk) 10:29, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
I said that read it. If you can read it, then you will soon understand that your article is not allowed.
p-adic 12:52, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

Unless something changed:

1. GWiki userpages and blog posts are not considered acceptable sources.

2. There's a rule against creating an article aobut something you made yourself.

At any rate, I deleted the page. By the way, there was no deletion tag on the page at the time of its deletion.

Username5243 (talk) 10:50, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

1. Blog posts are acceptable now, but it needs to pass a voting system.
2. There is no such rule. For example, this page was created by the same person who made up Notation Array Notation himself.
Triakula (talk) 10:56, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
The rule against creating articles about own inventions exists, just it not always was followed. But I respect this rule. --Denis Maksudov (talk) 20:53, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
According to our current citation policy, "Googology Wiki doesn't have a conflict of interest policy, and it's acceptable to write articles about your own work." — Best regards, Triakula 07:26, February 14, 2020 (UTC)

Okay, here's what seemed to happen:

At 2:16 AM in my timezone (EST) P-bot marked the page with a {{personal}} tag, which displays the following text:

This page is a candidate for deletion. The contents are suitable for blog posts rather than articles. The wiki policy requires us not to put original works without valid external sources on the main space.

The page was also blanked at this time. (I'm not sure if I agree with that part of the edit - how sould we know whether to delete it without being able to look at the page's contents? - but I agree with the rest.)

At 5:37 AM, Mango523wnr seems to have undone P-bot's edit - including removing the {{personal}} tag (he got a few more revisions in before I deleted the page). At the very least, removing a deletion tag from a page that was marked for deletion is probably against the rules - especially if it's being done by the page's creator.

Username5243 (talk) 22:51, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

> I'm not sure if I agree with that part of the edit - how sould we know whether to delete it without being able to look at the page's contents
I thought that we could look at the contents, because we have history pages. Since the page creator intensionally created it with a clarification that it would be deleted, I regarded it as an intensional violation. Shouldn't I revert the content in that case when I put a deletion tag? (I personally think that intensinal trolling contents is worth reverting together with putting a deleion tag.)
p-adic 23:04, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I'd classify that as "trolling" like with the Edwin puppets. I don't think it was made to attack anyone or specifically only to violate rules on purpose.

Username5243 (talk) 23:13, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

It is ok that if I had guessed that it was not created for an intensional trolling, then I would not have had to revert it when I put the deletion tag. What I would like to ask is " even if I guess that some page is created for an intensional trolling, shouldn't I revert the content when I put a deletion tag?"
Also, I still think that it was created for an intensional trolling, because the OP intensinally igonred the site policy. For any reasons, we should carefully follow rules. Otherwise, it is profane to the effort of other members to keep the community sound by setting reasonable rules by cummulative discussions.
p-adic 23:47, February 13, 2020 (UTC)
In normal circumstance, I agree with username that the page should not be blanked when tagging candidates for deletion. However, in the current state of this wiki, I think it is better to blank the page and tag at the same time. The reason is that there are so many pages that has the deletion tag and not deleted for so many years. It is quite abnormal. What is the meaning of the tag? Admins should delete the tag or delete the page in a reasonable period. Because users are not sure that the page with the deletion tags are to be deleted, it is reasonable to blank the page with deletion tag, as p-bot did. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 08:22, February 14, 2020 (UTC)

I think Triagol should not be deleted!

Triagol is a number that I invented and it's equal to 10 ↑↑↑ 3 in up-arrow notation, so PLEASE, do not delete it

See your talk page.
p-adic 08:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


It's a candidate for deletion because it has An uncommon name whose origin is not sourced... The number's name is made-up by me, but the number itself has existed before. I provided a source for the number (it was invented during the Big Number Duel). My goal in creating the article/page was just giving that number a name and showing it's approximation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Torplex (talkcontribs)

We are not allowed to create an article for a made-up name of a number.
p-adic 14:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

"Largest known squarefree semiprime" should not be deleted...

I just added a source link, like the one on "Largest known semiprime" which is not a candidate for deletion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlgorithmicHead (talkcontribs)

What you added is not a source for the largest known sequarefree semirprime, is it? Please check Googology Wiki:Policy#Citation for what can be a source for a specific title or a description. Say, a source for an arbitrary function cannot be a source of Buchholz's function.
p-adic 00:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think Aleph-zero should not be deleted

I copied and credited the page from Wikipedia and now it's been labeled as "candidate for deletion." Why though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Chocolate-dolphin (talkcontribs)

The sources from Wikipedia are not allowed per policy page, since it is considered as a bad source. ARsygo (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
can you use Wolfram? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Chocolate-dolphin (talkcontribs)
Is it the one from MathWorld Wolfram? I think it's ok to add that. ARsygo (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I've edited my Aleph-zero page with the MathWorld Wolfram source. Is that okay now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Chocolate-dolphin (talkcontribs)

I have edited my Aleph-zero page, is it okay now?

I also used a MathWorld Wolfram source.

Tag deleted. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 12:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I think -logue should NOT be deleted!!!

I don't think it should because it does not include any bad sources. And -logue is a used prefix. So why delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenzzz (talkcontribs)

You can see the reason at the article.
p-adic 22:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

My pages

Trianta-taxis should NOT BE DELETED but P進大好きbot took over it and and added the {{No source}} tag.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by N6n5r6n (talkcontribs)

Sorry, but that page does not have a valid source, hence it has marked for deletion, actually. ARsygo (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Terminusfinity should be deleted, Why?

Terminusfinity is a fictional number, this wiki is about nonfictional numbers, here is the article; —Preceding unsigned comment added by MauroPerin (talkcontribs)

The article has already been deleted since 2018. Perhaps you confounded with .
p-adic 16:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
For , the reason is explained there as follows.
No valid external source is provided. The wiki policy requires a good source for the contents. For example, academic papers are good sources, while articles in other wikis such as Wikipedia are bad sources.
🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 16:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Why ☉ Should Not Be Deleted

☉ Is Terminusfinity The Name: Terminusfinity, Terminusfinity Is A Big Number, Bigger Than Absolute Infinity. Proof: Terminusfinity = Absility (^) x Absility (^) Absility = Inaccessiblefinity x Inaccessiblefinity Inaccessiblefinity = Enternalfinity x Enternalfinity Enternalfinity = Endfinity x Endfinity Endfinity = Final Infinity x Final Infinity Final Infinity = Infinifinity x Infinifinity Infinifinity = Ultrafinifinity x Ultrafinifinity More Info: Numbers 0 to 𝗡̴̖͈̰̑̇͌ 𝗘̷̪͔̤̤̪̇̐̈́̒͆ 𝗩̸͙̫͎̃̓̀̈́̐ 𝗘҉̜͙̦̋͌͛̌͋ͅ 𝗥҈̰̘̬̳͕͛̒͑ !!! [1/2] - YouTube —Preceding unsigned comment added by Althathebest (talkcontribs)

Please read the comment by kyodaisuu above, and learn what a proof means.
p-adic 22:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I think Graham's, Graham's number shoudlnt be a canditate for deletion

Okay the sand grain comparasion may not be the most accurate (so you can edit that ) but still , it has some content and the definition and the size is accurate —Preceding unsigned comment added by MfsmGame23 (talkcontribs)

The page you showed in this edit, the quora page, is not a valid source for the number, because no one in the page clarified that the number in the name of "Graham's, Graham's number" was created by the author. Read "What can be a source?" section of the policy carefully.
If you want to add a source to a specific description, e.g. a definition or a statement, you need to cite the first source or a peer-reviewed source of the description. A personal website is not peer-reviewed, and hence can be a source of the definition of a number only when the website clarifies that the number is created by the author or the creator allows it as the first source.
Moreover, the source is to be given to a specific description. You added sources without specifying the sentence, which is not recognized as a valid way of showing source. The article will be deleted soon. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 00:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)