Testwiki:Articles for deletion/Zenzizenzizenzic

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. — CharlotteWebb 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Zenzizenzizenzic

Delete - dictionary definition. I hear tell of "transwiki" to Wictionary but I don't knwo how that works, but if this is not there already it probably should be. Otto4711 21:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This article is more than a dictionary definition. It is part of the history of mathematics and the way numbers were represented historically. Lumos3 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep per Lumos. Does seem to be more than a dictdef. Grutness...wha? 00:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. The external link says about this word, "It turns up from time to time as one of those weird words which is best known for being held up as an example of a weird word." The Oxford English Dictionary does include this word, but the only citation for this particular word comes from the mathematical work published in 1557 in which it was apparently coined, and which doesn't even use the same spelling; "zenzizenzizenzic" is how the word would be spelled if it had survived into modern English (as opposed to "Zenzizenzizenzikes"). The most recent OED cite for any of the "zenzi..." exponentials is from 1674. This word is most relevant as a word which should be in the dictionary, rather than as a mathematical concept which should be in the encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The graphic image alone makes this article encyclopedic. If you enlarge it, you can actually read two pages that were printed when Mary I was Queen of England and Queen of Ireland. Fascinating! DavidCBryant 12:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:INTERESTING. Otto4711 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with Lumos - it's part of the history of mathematics. It's also part of the history of writing - early efforts to find appropriate symbols for mathematical concepts. I do think it's too short to stand as an article in its own right, so really should be moved to a section on some more encyclopedic page. How would anyone ever find this page if they did not know the word to begin with? I don't agree with DavidCBryant, though. Simply having a fascinating image isn't enough to merit inclusion. If that were the case, every single Pharaonic papyrus fragment would have its own page, and so would each of the clay tablets from each of the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and surrounding areas. Cbdorsett 04:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• week keep more than a dict def. Some historical significance in the naming of mathematical concepts. --Salix alba (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - more than a dict def, referenced and notable. Gandalf61 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Notable actually has a meaning here. Can you show that this has been the subject of in-depth reliable secondary sources? Otto4711 03:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, Otto, I know all about WP:NOTE - that's why I said "notable". Etymological study in Michael Quinion's World Wide Words here. Published references in Much Ado About English by Richard Watson Todd ISBN 978-1857883725 and Measure for Measure: The Story of Imperial, Metric, and Other Units by Alexius J. Hebra ISBN 978-0801870729. Gandalf61 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• Not having copies of the latter two references, I can only guess based on the titles but I have certain reservations that Zenzizenzizenzic was their sole subject or even a major subject. Otto4711 23:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• That's not what I claimed. Zenzizenzizenzic is mentioned in both books in the context of Robert Recorde and his place in the history of mathematics and development of modern mathematical terminology and notation. So we have:

1. Primary source.
2. Secondary in-depth source (the Michael Quinion reference).
3. Mentions in other multiple independent published secondary sources.

which, taken all together, support the argument that zenzizenzizenzic has a sufficently notable place in the history of mathematics and the English language to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gandalf61 (talk • contribs) 10:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I think it's plenty notable, but don't think it should be an article all on its lonesome. I also don't think it should be shunted off to the last page of Wiktionary. Its notability is not in its placement in the alphabet, but its role in history. It may not be a big role, but it's there. Salix alba (below) makes a good point - we need an article on the history of the development of mathematical notation, and this "word" belongs right in there. Has anyone run across a page which deals with this issue? I have a lot of info about it, but I'm not sure how extensive my references are. Cbdorsett 14:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

comment Weirdword has an interesting paragraph discussing the problems of expressing the powers of numbers before our $a^b$ notation was invented. The adoption of the modern notation is quite a significant event in the history of mathematical notation, and Zenzizenzizenzic achieves its notability as a precursor to this notation. Now there is nowhere in wikipedia where we document this transition or even who invented the $a^b$, this seems precisely the sort of thing which wikipedia should address. --Salix alba (talk) 23:53, 6 March 2007 (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.