Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12#1571790961
=[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 12|October 12]]=
==Tertius gaudens==
:The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
:The result of the discussion was delete
- {{no redirect|1 = Tertius gaudens }} → :Georg Simmel (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tertius_gaudens&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-07-20&end=2019-08-18&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Tertius_gaudens stats])
[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Tertius gaudens|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Tertius gaudens closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Tertius gaudens|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Tertius gaudens closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Tertius gaudens|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Tertius gaudens closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Bad redirect – lemma not even mentioned in given target. Hildeoc (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: the shortcomings of the :Georg Simmel article aren't the fault of the redirect. The phrase tertius gaudens exists, is known (to some), and was coined by Simmel. It isn't misleading, confusing, unlikely, offensive, or spam, which about takes care of the main reasons for outright deleting a redirect. Just possibily there is a better target, something related to competition theory perhaps, but I couldn't find any current WP article that describes it. Lithopsian (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- :You don't think this is misleading or confusing? A reader seeking to learn what "Tertius gaudens" means will land on Simmel's article and be satisfied? --BDD (talk) 18:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete, if there's no coverage of the phrase on Wikipedia then the redirect should not exist. I doubt it will ever evolve beyond a dicdef so it shouldn't be covered in a biography anyway. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I can't see how this is useful given the article's present state. --BDD (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
- Copy to Wiktionary using [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tertius_gaudens&oldid=859373019 this] revision. -- Tavix (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 18:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Copy to Wiktionary per Tavix and then soft redirect there. Not a very active user (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisting comment: There have been mentions in this discussion about copying the contents of a former revision to Wiktionary, but there has been no discussion on whether or not the contents in that revision would meet Wiktionary's notability standards for content. Relisting in the hopes such a discussion can occur.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Enwiki has no information about the subject. In my opinion we shouldn't be redirecting to wikt a potentially huge number of latin phrases for which we have no article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
:*Potentially huge? The significant Latin phrases are listed locally. -- Tavix (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2019 (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.