Talk:one hundred six

This page seems random. There are not many others like it; for example, there are no "one hundred five" nor "one hundred seven" pages. I say delete it. Uranographer (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April–August 2020
Tagged by Uranographer with the comment "this is an outlier: there are no entries for similar numbers" on 26 February 2020 but not listed. J3133 (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I was supposed to add the deletion request here? Oops!  And thanks J3133. Uranographer (talk) 08:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This was redirected from one hundred and six in 2010, which I consider to be the standard form. Should we remove the redirect and delete this one? DonnanZ (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * All numbers surrounding one hundred and six were deleted per RfD, but this one was spared for no reason I can think of (other than being overlooked by dint of being a redirect). --Lambiam 10:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete in line with the community's policy. John Cross (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WT:CFI: "An attested integer word (such as twenty-three or twenty-third) or a decimal numeral (sequence of 0, ..., 9 digits) that is ≥ 0 and ≤ 100 should be kept even if it is not idiomatic. In sequences of digits such as 125, the digits are considered to be separate components for the purpose of idiomaticity, and therefore, the sequences are often not idiomatic." The nominated entry has no idiomatic sense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per our numbers policy. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Deleted. — SGconlaw (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)