Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xian (abbreviation)

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 to Christian. As an interim measure. There is consensus to not keep this as an article, but not consensus about whether and where to merge or redirect to. Editors can still work this out on the talk page. Sandstein 10:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xian (abbreviation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition. We don’t normally have articles on words or abbreviations. The etymological information belongs at wiktionary. The usage for e.g. Christian or Christian (given name) belongs in those articles. None of the sources discuss the topic in depth, as required for notability – they just seem to be dictionary definitions. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Christian (given name) - nom is correct that abbreviations belong with the article on the primary name, otherwise it seems an unwarranted CONTENTFORK. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• How about merge to Christogram? BenKuykendall (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This stub's history goes back to a messy attempt to over-write a long-standing redirect in this edit in 2016. PamD 23:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: seems to have enough sources which describe the abbreviation. As a second choice, Redirect to Christian (though not the given name article), but only after adding a sourced statement in that article about the use of this abbreviation, so that readers will understand why they are there, whether they've come directly or from one of the several incoming redirects such as Xtian, Xianity, etc. PamD 23:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article certainly has sufficient sources, that isn't the cause to get rid of it, the reason is it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: Redundant to what? It's certainly not just an abbreviation for Christian (given name) to which you suggested redirecting it. PamD 08:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, on looking at the given name article I can see there's overlap, but not total redundancy. Christian (word) redirects to Christian: perhaps as well as an etymology section there should be an "abbreviations" section there. It's not appropriate for the abbreviation, used in a wider range of senses, to redirect to a given name, especially given the wider range of abbreviations like Xianity which are mopped up in this article on the abbreviation. PamD 09:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• comment if it‘s used on multiple pages then disambiguation would be appropriate. That’s actually where I noticed it, on Xian (disambiguation), so e.g. Christian and Christian (given name) could be listed there in place of the entry for this page, then this redirected to the dab page. The dab page also has a link to wiktionary for those looking for a dictionary definition.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails the WP:GNG and WP:NOTDICTIONARY. The abbreviation isn't notable--it exists and is used but that doesn't mean it's notable. It's sources are mostly trivial mentions or dictionary definitions, no substantive coverage appears in a search of google, google scholar, or google news so I'm not convinced it satisfies the WP:GNG let alone WP:NOTDICT. I see absolutely no reason to redirect this. It won't help readers: no one is going to type in the search bar "Xian (abbreviation)". Its deletion doesn't threaten to break pages: almost every incoming link is an alert about this deletion discussion. The only links from other articles are WXTN (in the infobox whose meaning is adequately conveyed just by the prose), Christogram (as one of other examples of a point adequately conveyed in prose), List of Christian Synonyms (as a see also link), Phonetic complement (as one of many examples), and Christ (title) (in a "see also" hat link alongside Christogram which deals with the subject more extensively). None of these pages will be harmed by the loss of this link. The topic is not notable, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, neither readers nor editors will be substantially helped by maintaining a redirect, so I'm firmly in favor of deletion. At best this should be interwiki'd to wiktionary. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:54, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Christianity. Although the abbreviation stands for the word Christian, I believe it is usually the adjective sense (of or relating to Christianity) rather than the noun sense (person who follows Christianity) that is abbreviated. A hatnote can direct users to the given name, which appears to be a less common (but extant) use of the abbreviation. As others have suggested, I don't see potential for this to grow much beyond a definition. The title is probably nonetheless useful for encyclopedia users, though. At a minimum, a redirect would be useful for the Xian (disambiguation) page. In principle I would not object to PamD's suggestion of expanding the Etymology section of Christian, but I note an ongoing discussion about moving that page to the plural form. And although it doesn't support my argument, see also Xmas#Other uses of "X(t)" for "Chris(t)-", as another possible place to merge. Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.