Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus H. Christ (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. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesus H. Christ
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is simply a procedural nomination. One editor is attempting to delete the content of the page and replace it with a soft redirect to the wiktionary entry. Because there was a previous AfD which ended in keep, I felt there needed to be a new community consensus to de facto delete the article. Is the current article in such poor condition that it does not meet any wikipedia inclusion policies (including stub), and therefore should wholesale be deleted from the project? Andrew c [talk] 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC) (categories)
 * Comment. The contents of the article were merged to the Wiktionary entry Jesus H. Christ.  16:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC) this comment was made by user:Silly rabbit
 * This is true for some, but not all.-Andrew c [talk] 16:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The content that was not merged was also not verifiable or was already better covered in the Christogram article (which is linked on the Wiktionary page). But if you disagree about the merger, fix it.  Rossami (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Question to nom Why is this article in such poor condition that it couldn't meet a stub? I'm not trying to be glib, I'm just not sure I understand. There does seem to be a basis for a brief article here. Considering it already strongly passed a separate AfD, I'm also not sure how this is just a procedural nom, regardless of the wiktionary entry. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the article is in such poor condition, but simply am asking a question of the community. Please see this diff. All the content of the page was deleted, and replaced with . A soft redirect is different from a stub. I dispute this bold action, especially in light of the previous AfD, so I am bringing the issue again before AfD, to see if the community supports the edit in question, or if they support another option, or a pure keep or pure delete or whatever. Hope that clears things up.-Andrew c [talk] 16:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all which cannot be properly verified through reliable third party publications. We have standards to uphold here.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The two references seem reliable though, don't they? Of course, can't check them on the internet (at least I can't). Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the term has been the primary topic of scholarly articles, wouldn't it at least be worth of a stub?Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to this article or any other on Wikipedia so long as it meets our core policies and guidelines. If I may clarify my original comment, I have no problem with this article being reduced down to a stub so long as the material within said stub is verifiable through reliable sources, that's all.  Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The second reference seems to be available at JSTOR, although I can't access JSTOR myself at the moment. Zagalejo^^^ 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is nothing wrong with an article on an expression. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. Trans-wiki to Wikitonary. GreenJoe 17:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree, as I just did for the afd on Green thumb, but it appears that were actually reliable source which were solely about this term. I'm a little surprised myself, but they seem legit. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, there's research on the usage of the phrase and its meanings, certainly more than a dicdef TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First, I will object to the wording of the nomination. I have never suggested that this page or its content be deleted.  I acted to turn this page into a redirect after merging the content to a better location.  In this case, the better location for the dictionary definition is Wiktionary and the redirect was a soft redirect but it is still a redirect, not a deletion.  Since content was merged, we are obligated to keep the attribution history in order to comply with GFDL.  Second, I recommend that this discussion be closed since neither I nor the nominator want the page deleted.  Decisions about whether or not to redirect a page get worked out on the respective article Talk pages.  AfD is not the right forum for this discussion.  If we must have the discussion here (and I suppose we must since at least one person above has now recommended deletion), count my opinion as a very strong keep as redirect to Wiktionary.  But if that is not an option, deletion is better than keeping a page that is a mere dictionary definition.  So far, no one has been able to point to any content in this page or any potential for additional content which goes beyond merely lexical content - that is, meaning, origins and usage of the word or phrase.  The fact that it's sourced is irrelevant (except to make it a particularly good dictionary definition).  Rossami (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think usage and application is exactly what brings it from a dicdef to an encyclopedic article. Note also it was kept <2 months ago, what's changed since then? TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 21:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Usage notes are both accepted and desired in a truly great unabridged dictionary (like Wiktionary). What goes beyond lexical content?  (As to "what's changed since the last discussion" - nothing.  The AfD was closed and normal editing resumes.  That includes routine decisions like mergers and redirects.  The AfD only concluded that the page not be deleted, not that it must forever after be preserved in the form or even at the title it was at during the discussion.)  Rossami (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are making good points Rossami, because honestly, the article is basically the same thing as the wiktionary entry. The only reason I think a term like this warrants further discussion is because of the sources given, which apparently were written primarily about the term. Although, playing Devil's Advocate on myself, I wonder how I would feel if someone wrote a scholarly article on the history of the term "Green Thumb". Ugh, AfDs as such are hard. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 22:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable expression that should have encyclopedia coverage. Everyking (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per prior AFD, which also has sources which haven't been added yet. Is also a redirect of Jesus Christ (profanity), so it contains references to other versions than JHC; perhaps move over redirect is in order. I would think the Wiktionary version and the WP version should be free to grow separately because they are for different purposes; there is some overlap but not 100%. Christogram was disappointingly weak and would not be a good merge. The relevant policy is WP:NOTDICDEF: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness", with special reference to items with independent cultural significance. JJB 20:03, 22 May 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.