Talk:Jesus H. Christ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[edit] Expand, merge or redirect

This page is a dictionary definition (something which Wikipedia is not). It explains the meaning, etymology and usage examples of a slang expression. I can't find any encyclopedic content on this page. Nothing here rises past what I would expect to read in a truly great unabridged dictionary. The definitions and usage discussions belong over in Wiktionary where folks with the right skills, interests and lexical tools can more easily sort out the meanings and origins.

Options to fix the page here include:

  1. Expand the page with encyclopedic content - that is, content that goes well beyond the merely lexical.
  2. Redirect the page to a more general page.
  3. Replace the current contents with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (usually done using the {{wi}} template).

Pending a better answer, I'm implementing option 3 for now. Rossami (talk) 11:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Because the result of a previous AfD was keep, I'm going to ask you to please take this to AfD again before deleting the article (via soft redirect). Thanks for your consideration.-Andrew c [talk] 15:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
AfD would (rightly) reject the case because no deletion occurred. Nor do I believe that deletion is appropriate. I think the pagehistory has useful content which was merged to the Wiktionary page. In order to comply with GFDL, we have to keep that pagehistory. Please remember that turning a page into a Wikipedia:redirect is not deletion in the deliberate way that we use those terms here. This is an issue that we are expected to solve here on the article's Talk page.
I've read the page again. The content is still appears to me to be all lexical. Either show me where I'm wrong or please explain why this content isn't better on Wiktionary. Rossami (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The logic you are using could be used to redirect every stub on Wikipedia. Why not redirect Raw water or Co-occurrence or any other stub about a term? This article was put before the community for consideration, and the community decided to keep the article. You are now ignoring that consensus and wholesale deleting the article from wikipedia. I dispute your deletion of content, so there is no consensus for your bold deletion. I strongly suggest you wait for a new consensus to be reached before blanking the page again. I believe the best forum to reach such a consensus would be AfD. Good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 15:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may interject here, I agree with Rosami's edit. However, I also feel that, per Andrew c's comments, this should be brought to wider community attention. The article did survive an AfD, and the community consensus did not even mention the idea of moving all of the content out to Wiktionary. Perhaps AfD is the right forum for this discussion, as one of the deletion criteria is of "content that does not belong in an encyclopedia". As this is effectively Rosami's argument, soft redirecting amounts to de facto deletion. I don't buy the caveat about the edit history remaining. If anything that is a rationalization. Plenty of things get redirected as a result of AfD discussion. silly rabbit (talk) 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

An AfD decision to "keep" an article does not mean that the article must forever after be kept in that state or even at that title. The fact that an AfD discussion doesn't consider a particular option does not mean that we are forever precluded from considering that option. After the AfD decision, normal editing continues. A decision to merge or move content is exactly that - an ordinary-editor action. A redirect is explicitly not deletion (de facto or otherwise). That fallacy has been endlessly and repeatedly discussed. The point is clear in both policy and precedent. If you don't believe me, go ask some regulars at Deletion Review. An AfD might end in a recommendation to redirect a page but if you open the page with a recommendation to redirect, the case will be speedy-closed because neither the nominator nor the other participants are arguing to delete the page. You can disagree with the decision to merge and redirect but to call that act "deletion" is to deliberately confuse the issue.
I can't help but note that so far everyone is commenting solely based on the AfD. So far, no one has answered the original question - where in this current article is there any content that goes beyond what you would expect to see in a truly great unabridged dictionary? I still don't see it. Rossami (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And now having been through a pointless AfD discussion, we're right back to the same question. Is there any content on this page which goes beyond merely lexical content? If so, would someone please point it out? If not, this page should be (again) turned into a redirect to some other page. Rossami (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus for your proposal at the AfD. The last comment summed it up well, IMO: I would think the Wiktionary version and the WP version should be free to grow separately because they are for different purposes. WP:STUB covers this topic (stub vs. transwikifying). The consensus was clear that this topic is notable enough to have coverage at wikipedia. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to have a stub (instead of a soft redirect). Removing this stub, and replacing it with a soft redirect is only useful for articles that could never possibly have encyclopedic coverage. The question before AfD was in essence "is this topic worthy of an encyclopedia article?" and the consensus, twice now, has been "yes". Therefore, having a stub is preferred to a soft-redirect.-Andrew c [talk] 17:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Though there were a few people who commented as you described, the only consensus out of that AfD is that the pagehistory is worth keeping. So let me ask yet again, what content on this page currently goes beyond merely lexical content? Rossami (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
The topic is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, whether that be a stub or a full article. End of story. There is no consensus for your proposal. -Andrew c [talk] 18:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is not yet consensus. That's why I continue to ask for it here. If you feel that there is a viable basis for an encyclopedia article here, all I'm asking is that you show me. I don't see it. Where is the non-lexical content? Rossami (talk) 21:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)