Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zenzizenzizenzic (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Zenzizenzizenzic
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article is a dictionary article about a word in the encyclopedia. But WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Word is not notable, as it only appeared in one (1) publication over 450 years ago, and is (allegedly) mentioned in one (1) reliable source dictionary which points to the publication. No other reliable source for this information is known. I don't think that a dictionary counts as a reliable source for a word for the wikipedia, otherwise every word in the OED becomes a valid encyclopedia article, but we don't accept dicdefs.

There's no evidence that this is an important mathematical concept. It's main claim to fame seems to be that the word has a lot of z's in it; but even that is unreferenced.

The word therefore lacks notability as an encyclopedic topic, encyclopedic articles are not about words. The wiktionary article covers the same ground, and the topic is covered well and a dictionary article is not off-topic in a dictionary. Since there is a reasonable wiktionary article already, and the nearest mathematical concept seems to be squaring, I call for MERGE to square (algebra). - Wolfkeeper  02:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary - as Wiktionary entry is missing the term's history, and the OED is a dictionary that contains such information, so Wiktionary could do with expansion. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Utterly nonnotable word or concept: used only ONCE in a publication,hundreds of years ago, and with a different spelling. Fails WP:N and not a dictionary. So deldideldilete Edison (talk) 03:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment The claim that it is "utterly nonnotable" is at odds with the General notability guideline, which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." So while there may be arguments in favor of deletion, this isn't one.  —Dominus (talk) 14:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment So what are the "multiple reliable sources with significant coverage?" One publication and a dictionary? That does not justify an encyclopedia article per our policies and guidelines. Edison (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment "One publication and a dictionary"? The article lists the following references:
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Jwesley78  (talk • contribs)  04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Jwesley78  (talk • contribs)  04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Jwesley78  (talk • contribs)  04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Jwesley78  (talk • contribs)  04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Jwesley78  (talk • contribs)  04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Jwesley78  (talk • contribs)  04:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The way numbers were recorded through history is of interest in an encyclopedia. The representation of large numbers was a problem and this entry demonstrates one attempt at its solution. The article has merit within the history of mathematics and should be kept. Lumos3 (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a number, it's an English word. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to be translatable into other languages. Whereas, if translated, this article would still inevitably still be about an English word; the word itself (the topic of the article) is untranslatable. That proves it's a word article, not a concept, and hence is not encyclopedic in its own right.- Wolfkeeper  10:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Its about the way exponants were represented before an exponential notation had been developed. Lumos3 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delete Unsure Keep. It's an obsolete word that meant "raised to the eighth power". But the article is not about the mathematical concept of raising to the eighth power, which is more than adequately covered by Exponentiation, it is specifically about the word itself. As such, it seems like a clear WP:NOTDIC to me. --  Boing!   said Zebedee  18:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an archaic way of representing exponents. It is not covered in a modern article on mathematics, its part of the history of mathematics. Lumos3 (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As indicated in the nom if you want to copy the information into a maths article, feel free. In the meantime the article doesn't square well with wiki-policy. Plenty of maths articles cover the history of maths.- Wolfkeeper  03:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure now, having read other arguments. Is it just about the word, or about an archaic method of denoting exponentiation? -- Boing!   said Zebedee  17:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally convinced by other arguments here that it's a notable idea in the history of exponentiation notation -- Boing!   said Zebedee  06:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This seems like a perfectly valid and well-sourced topic in the history of mathematical notation. The fact that it's a word seems to me completely irrelevant: most Wikipedia articles have words as their titles, but that doesn't make them subject to deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Exponentiation to form an article. It's an interesting article about a seemingly unlikely term coined for a mathematical concept. Unlike the article for (the made-up term) googol, this article more about the word than its meaning. But that's no reason for deletion.  I'm sure there are many similar articles about archaic words, e.g., Apotome, Hostler. The content might need some cleanup, but since it provides several references this shouldn't be too difficult. If not merged, then Keep.  Jwesley 78 06:23, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - article now has plenty of references that establish notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - notability is necessary, but not sufficient. We don't allow lots of things that are notable if they violate any one of the ISNOT's, as this one does.- Wolfkeeper  15:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am not particularly interested in this article, but as a general note, there is no reason why words should be the only category of things that doesn't become notable when reliable sources write about them in a non-trivial way. We traditionally do have such articles. This word seems to have reached just about a sufficient level of notability. It's probably a borderline case. Hans Adler 11:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Encyclopedias were invented to work alongside dictionaries and not to duplicate them. The problem is that articles on words inevitably emphasise the word and inevitably end up like discursively written dictionary articles (they cover exactly the same ground). And we have to have rules, and it's desirable that they be clear because it cuts down discussions in AFDs. Determining that an article is really about a word is pretty easy, because the topic has to be defined in the first sentence or two, and there's no doubt at all that all dictionary entries, for example, in Wiktionary are about the word, not any underlying concept. And it's always possible to rearrange article scopes to make individual articles about things, not words.- Wolfkeeper  14:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: The word certainly has no mathematical significance and with a few exceptions seems to never have entered the language. It rates a mention in English words with uncommon properties but the article basically consists of an etymology with little potential for anything else. It seems some authors have picked up on the word for its unusual spelling, but I don't think that implies notability of the subject. In other words, if the word had a more conventional spelling it would have been forgotten long ago, and an article is supposed to be about a subject, not about how the subject is spelled.--RDBury (talk) 12:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is an interesting article. The best that would happen otherwise is it would be merged into a long article and make both worse. I believe this historical bit of mathematical notation deserves its place in wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a good history of mathematics should record the failed attempts as well as the successes. This article serves as a side note in the development of our modern notation illustrating problem with trying to express higher powers in words. --Salix (talk): 12:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are certainly enough references to make it notable, and it is a good illustration of how the absence of symbols to write out mathematical ideas influenced the words and phrases that were used to describe them. More broadly, I agree with Hans that there seems no reason words should be an exception. WP:NOTDIC should be interpreted with common sense, not as law. Shreevatsa (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2010 (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.