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. Whether a redirect of any kind should be created can still be discussed. Sandstein 15:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment The previous deletion discussions were from a long time ago (2005 and 2009), and the page clearly has aspirations to be more than a dictionary definition, although the way it currently does so is a bit
WP:SYNTH-y. The question of who the first trillionaire will be and when that might happen has received substantial coverage (for a smattering of sources:
[1][2][3][4][5]). So, it's within the remit of
WP:CRYSTAL for us to write about it. The question to my mind is whether a dedicated article is the right place to do so.
XOR'easter (
talk) 19:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)reply
delete The nominator is correct. Were the previous pages built by the same author, or others? Is there a way to stop the 4th reincarnation of the page?
Ode+Joy (
talk) 23:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I suggest that the closing admin
WP:SALT this page.
KidAd •
SPEAK 00:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt: Wikipedia, not wiktionary, and while there will eventually be an article there, "eventually" is not now.
BilledMammal (
talk) 05:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
keep — articles on
billionaire/
millionaire exist;
Pandora Papers covers sums up to 32 trillion USD (divided between less than 1 thousand people (“underworld” contingent apparently excluded)).
— Pietadè (
talk) 05:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to wiktionary using {{
Wiktionary redirect}}. See the guideline at
WP:SRD. There is in fact scope to write an encyclopaedia article about trillionaires, but this isn't it.—
S MarshallT/
C 09:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - There is nothing in the article about being a trillionaire. What's here is the very definition of
WP:SYNTH. If inflation takes off this might become more relevant, but there's nothing here now.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
billionaire and add a couple sentences there about the possibility of trillionaires coming to be. I rewrote the text so that
WP:SYNTH is no longer an issue. There isn't much to say about the topic presently, so a stand-alone page isn't warranted. However, there's more to cover than the definition, so
WP:NOTDICT doesn't apply, and we'd be reporting on other sources' speculations rather than indulging in our own, so
WP:CRYSTAL allows it, too.
XOR'easter (
talk) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
A thought: if a person is wise enough to achieve this kind of status, wouldn't it be wise to assume that he/she has been/is/shall be wise enough not to disclose this kind of „record“...
☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 16:14, 11 October 2021 (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.
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. Whether a redirect of any kind should be created can still be discussed. Sandstein 15:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment The previous deletion discussions were from a long time ago (2005 and 2009), and the page clearly has aspirations to be more than a dictionary definition, although the way it currently does so is a bit
WP:SYNTH-y. The question of who the first trillionaire will be and when that might happen has received substantial coverage (for a smattering of sources:
[1][2][3][4][5]). So, it's within the remit of
WP:CRYSTAL for us to write about it. The question to my mind is whether a dedicated article is the right place to do so.
XOR'easter (
talk) 19:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)reply
delete The nominator is correct. Were the previous pages built by the same author, or others? Is there a way to stop the 4th reincarnation of the page?
Ode+Joy (
talk) 23:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I suggest that the closing admin
WP:SALT this page.
KidAd •
SPEAK 00:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete and salt: Wikipedia, not wiktionary, and while there will eventually be an article there, "eventually" is not now.
BilledMammal (
talk) 05:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
keep — articles on
billionaire/
millionaire exist;
Pandora Papers covers sums up to 32 trillion USD (divided between less than 1 thousand people (“underworld” contingent apparently excluded)).
— Pietadè (
talk) 05:54, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Soft redirect to wiktionary using {{
Wiktionary redirect}}. See the guideline at
WP:SRD. There is in fact scope to write an encyclopaedia article about trillionaires, but this isn't it.—
S MarshallT/
C 09:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - There is nothing in the article about being a trillionaire. What's here is the very definition of
WP:SYNTH. If inflation takes off this might become more relevant, but there's nothing here now.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
billionaire and add a couple sentences there about the possibility of trillionaires coming to be. I rewrote the text so that
WP:SYNTH is no longer an issue. There isn't much to say about the topic presently, so a stand-alone page isn't warranted. However, there's more to cover than the definition, so
WP:NOTDICT doesn't apply, and we'd be reporting on other sources' speculations rather than indulging in our own, so
WP:CRYSTAL allows it, too.
XOR'easter (
talk) 14:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)reply
A thought: if a person is wise enough to achieve this kind of status, wouldn't it be wise to assume that he/she has been/is/shall be wise enough not to disclose this kind of „record“...
☆☆☆—PietadèTalk 16:14, 11 October 2021 (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.