Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One third

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 Redirect. If someone discovers content rendering the encyclopedic expansion of these worthwhile, a consensus to do so may always be developed at the talk page. Until then, consensus favors redirection, solely for convenience.

[edit] One third and one quarter

I would argue that these are dictionary definitions, and they do not necessitate an article. There exists already an article at one half, which perhaps is justified, but perhaps not the third and the fourth. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I maintain it does not seem more unencyclopaedic than one half or a list of quarter terms. Further, I disagree that the bar should be that they "necessitate" an article, but that there is the potential for an article. I would also note that print encyclopaedia have at times included articles on such terms. Darker Dreams 22:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete and transwiki. Stubs about words belong at Wiktionary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not sure about the transwikiing. One third is not a word, any more than one apple or one hour. There are already wiktionary entries for third and quarter. For one quarter: redirect to quartile. We don't have an article tertile, otherwise I'd say: redirect one third to there.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing much enyclopedic to say about either one. FrozenPurpleCube 23:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I think redirects would be better than deleting or moving to wiktionary. One could redirect say to 3 (number) and 4 (number) respectively, or to quarter, etc. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have no objection in principle to a redirect to third or quarter though I don't know how often it'll come up. FrozenPurpleCube 02:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep if articles are expanded in the form of one half. Otherwise delete and redirect to fraction. --Dhartung | Talk 04:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or do as Dhartung suggested--Cronholm144 05:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy redirect, Wikipedia already has an article 1/3. I would suggest a speedy close to this afd and redirect there. This is a non-issue.--agr 19:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 1/3 is a dab page. Only one meaning is relevant, and that leads to another dab page, third. Redirecting there is possible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete linas 00:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think even one half should exist, none of the articles offer any insight into their subject. Cedars 00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
• Week keep for some reasons its bugging be that integers are seen as more important that fractions. Surely their must be somthing interesting to say about these numbers, either from a mathematical point of view or a cultural one. I'd be inclined to keep these for a while to see if anyone find intereting to say about them. --Salix alba (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
• redirect to third and quarter. --Salix alba (talk) 20:36, 16 May 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.