Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nothing

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nothing

Essay. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Is "really rather silly" a valid reason? Because it is. Carlo 02:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Keep - nothing is a valid concept, just like zero is a valid number. Could use a cleanup, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted. - Richardcavell 04:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, valid concept (and there must be a reason it's existed since 2002 without an AfD). Anyway, I've seen essays (that were signed!) kept before; they just need cleaning up and wikification and they're not bad articles. --Rory096 05:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per above. --TM 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs cleanup but a valid topic for an article. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep agree with Rory. --Kchase02 06:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Richardcavell and User:Rory096. And not having an article on nothing would look pretty silly. JIP | Talk 06:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep An article on the philosophical concept of nothing is valid. This needs a radical cleanup though, as it is a rather unencyclopædic mess at the moment.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  06:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. We're more likely to get a good article if this roadblock to coherence is eliminated first. --- GWO
• Keep, rory just saved an article, though I agree with Gareth and aeropagitica, it definately needs some work. :) --Andy123(talk) 09:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Good stuff in it. Tyrenius 11:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Needs a rewrite with what some philosophers/thinkers have thought of nothing (with sources). A very important concept in philosophy too. --Knucmo2 12:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - As per all above arguments. Nothing is a valid concept especially to modern and post-modern philosophers. As above, I agree that it needs a radical cleanup, and hopefully the attention it's getting with the AfD discussion here, it'll get some cleaning up. Psyphics 15:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Obvious Keep as per Psyphics Sparsefarce 17:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect to Wikipedia (oh snap) -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 21:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per GWO. Such an important subject obviously needs to have an article -- but that doesn't necessarily mean we want to keep this article. I see very little here that is not either nonsense or obvious; realistically, any cleanup would basically involve starting again from scratch. — Haeleth Talk 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing has gotta be worth something. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, math and philosophy term (maybe more, who knows). Could easily become a good article with valuable links to philoso-phers/phies and/or math theories on just what zero is. Lundse 00:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons listed above. DVD+ R/W 00:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak keep or Rewrite from scratch If it isn't improved by the second time around I would vote for delete just to get a better article.--Nick Y. 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. How does deleting everything we have now help make the article better? --Rory096 07:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - the answer is that if editors are faced with trying to clear up a monstrously bad article, they may well back away, whereas everyone enjoys the clean blank space of an article that doesn't exist yet.Vizjim 16:02, 9 May 2006 (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.