Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aught ought naught nought


 * 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 keep -- there's a clear consensus here that third-party reliable sources discussing this topic can, and to a significant extent, have been found, remedying any original research problems. John254 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Names for the number 0
(formerly "Aught ought naught nought")


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article constitutes original research. It is also a synthesis and lacks reliable, third-party sources discussing the subject. It was started, as the creator admits, "because the words often confuse me and thought others would appreciate some insight"; however, that does not sound like a valid reason for starting an article. Biruitorul Talk 07:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The content may currently be original research (to an extent), but the topic clearly isn't when one goes and looks for sources. The relationship between these four words is discussed in reams of sources, including Mark My Words, published in 1949, and the Transactions of the American Philological Association‎, published in 1892, to name but two.  Research that was published in a journal over 100 years ago is hardly original.  Now the title may be a problem, but that's because this really ought to be structured as a breakout sub-article of 0 (number), since that's how most sources treat it.  But that's just a matter of renaming it to Names for the number 0 or some such title, and redirecting naught, naughty, aught, nought, and ought either to the parent section in 0 (number) or directly to the sub-article.  No deletion is required.  Only picking up sources and writing. Uncle G (talk) 08:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition to naught, aught, nought, and ought, don't forget oh, null and nil for Names for the number 0.  Linguist At Large  09:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete There may be an article somehow somewhere but this one isn't salvageable and violates our no original research policy. JBsupreme (talk) 08:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What on Earth makes you think that this isn't salvageable, given what I wrote immediately above? Uncle G (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite per UncleG's ideas above.  Linguist At Large  09:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Would wikipedia accept an article on Chinese names for the number 0 ? Juzhong (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably, but what does that have to do with this discussion?  Linguist At <b style="color:#600;">Large</b> </b> 09:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well if it would take an article on English words but not Chinese words, I might want to call you some names. Juzhong (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, this line means Uncle G thinks all languages should be discussed in the same article. It could get quite long... Juzhong (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The horizontal rule indicates the point where the article was heavily refactored. Uncle G (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep for now as sourceable. But current article might need to be "stubified". Hobit (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No matter how much the article's writing style is changed from cute to encyclopedic, no matter how many sources are added, the topic is about names for the number zero. There is no reason for a spinoff from that article, and perhaps contributions can be made to that page.  Mandsford (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think 0 (number) is long enough, and warrants breaking the names for the number 0 out into its own article. <b style="font-size:0.9em;font-weight:bold;border:1px dashed #CCC;"> <b style="color:#080;">Linguist</b> At <b style="color:#600;">Large</b> </b> 21:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nominator. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Guess that horizontal line wasn't obvious enough. Juzhong (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Sesshomaru, did you not notice that not only is the article not like it was at the time of nomination, it doesn't even have the same name now as it did then? Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that I don't think User:Jubileeclipman's purpose in creating this page was legitimate. Some of this stuff can easily be mentioned at the 0 (number) article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The creator's intent is irrelevant. It's whether this page can be edited to conform to policy that matters, per Deletion policy; and it clearly can, because it has been.  And why have only "some of this stuff" in 0 (number)?  It's all verifiable.  We surely should have all of this stuff, at which point the question of why you think that adding this content to 0 (number), when it is already one-third of the size of that page in its own right (14KiB versus 43KiB), is appropriate, especially considering that there's ample scope for further expansion here (given that the article doesn't even cover all of the names,yet).  Furthermore, that's a rationale for merger, not for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep sourceable, important, more than dictionary information, a basic part of the linguistic elements of number systems. DGG (talk) 06:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article is properly sourced but it needs major rewriting. Also the Chinese section should be deleted as it is not related to the article at all. kotak kasut 02:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a name for the number 0. Avoid Anglo-centric bias. Uncle G (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.