. -- Tavix (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Kienspan }} → :Fatwood (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kienspan&action=history history] · [https://iw.toolforge.org/pageviews?start=2020-07-12&end=2020-08-10&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Kienspan stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Kienspan|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Kienspan closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Kienspan|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Kienspan closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Kienspan|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Kienspan closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Seems like a case of WP:RLOTE, this variety of wood is found all over the world; searching Google Scholar for this term only returned German results, suggesting that it's not used as a loanword in English. signed, Rosguill talk 15:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
:Used in one of Neal Stephenson's books, which are written in English. MarkMLl (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Enwiki has nothing about "Kienspan". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 22:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{Ping|MarkMLl}} I've never heard of Neal Stephenson until you mentioned him, so I found the article, proving he is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. So, the follow up question is: What is the name of the Neal Stephenson book which uses this word, and does the book have a Wikipedia article? Steel1943 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
- {{Ping|Steel1943}}It's in book two of "Quicksilver", which is the first volume of the The Baroque Cycle which forms the backstory of Cryptonomicon. The books are in the form of historical fiction with this section taking place in Central Europe circa 1680, and while most foreign terms are either explained or become obvious from context, the use of kienspan as a torch is described but not what it actually is. Therefore I suggest that the author is introducing it into English narrative as a loanword, which makes it notable. MarkMLl (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:RFFL. It's German for fatwood, see :de:Kienspan. Narky Blert (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per MarkMLl's explanation of its usage as a loanworld. I would have voted differently if the redirect would conflict with other uses, but it doesn't, so the service to our readers to have the search engine redirect them to the corresponding article takes preference, even if its usage in the English language is very rare. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- :Added the term to the article in form of a footnote (adding it to the list of synonyms in the lede seemed to be too early at this stage of usage). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
- ::{{reverted}} as inappropriate. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
:::: Reverting a facts-based contribution to an article in the middle of the ongoing discussions and even accusing the contributor of original research in the face of MarkMLl's explanation of the word's usage in the English language looks like you are trying to suppress evidence. I therefore consider your reversion at this particular point in time as disruptive.
:::: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, in the absence of any other noted English meaning of this word, the bar of "English usage" is not particularly high to warrant keeping it. ~ mazca talk 16:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:FORRED. I can't find any evidence of this being a loanword into English. One (admittedly badass) author using it in historical fiction doesn't warrant a redirect. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
:: MarkMLl already gave evidence of the term's usage further above in the discussion (and I stated this in the article, reverted by you, so you obviously are aware of it). In my judgement, the redirect is warranted per the relevant guideline WP:REDIR. The usage seems to be rare, but that does not matter much. What matters in a RfD are guidelines - and applying good common sense. The cited essay (WP:RLOTE aka WP:RFFL aka WP:FORRED) does not reflect community consensus, thus is of little relevance to this discussion. If anything, WP:RDELETE #8 ("if the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful") could be a valid reason for deletion depending on interpretation, but it is countered by WP:RKEEP #3 ("They aid searches on certain terms") and #5 ("Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.") Checking the purposes for why redirects are created (see guideline WP:RPURPOSE), points #1 ("Alternative names redirect to the most appropriate article title") and #8 ("Alternate forms of a name as found in reliable sources and common databases") apply to some extent. I consider an English book which is actually using the term as top-class evidence in regard to the term's usage in the English language. As the usage nevertheless is rare, the arguments need to be weighted and good common sense applied. But in the end the guideline-based Keep-argument "Someone finds them useful" is difficult to overturn unless an argument could be found for the entry to be harmful (like being in the way of another article, which it, however, is not). A book reader actually might want to know what "Kienspan" is, so the search engine should redirect to the relevant article. Therefore: Keep.
:: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:RFFL is sound; it prevents generating literally countless links that have no place in en WP. A single author of a single book using this is far from sufficient; there's probably tons of English books using tons of foreign terms for their own obscure (or mistaken) reasons. If the bar were that low we'd be back to countless foreign links, wasting our attention and time to repeatedly wonder about what they mean and why they exist every time some editor comes across them. This is why we don't keep any and all redirects anyone creates. --A D Monroe III(talk) 01:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
:: That's a red herring as we are not talking about tons of foreign terms, but a specific one. From your argumentation above it appears as if you prioritize easier maintenance over good user experience. While it is good if both can be had at the same time (f.e. by leaving a good edit summary on a redirect's purpose), the priority should always be on the best-possible user experience in querying an encyclopedia (because that's why we are here).
:: In most cases there are sound reasons for the existence of redirects, but at the minimum they exist because someone found them useful (which typically involves some suboptimal situation this user ran into earlier which triggered him or her to add the redirect to make the experience less unpleasant for others -- the cited "hint" further above might be eye-opening). Of course, sometimes an editor is confused or mistaken and the redirect needs to be taken care of in some form, but this redirect is not one of them. It is not only useful as it is, it is actually desirable as a redirect from a loanword per the relevant guideline. It might be rarely used, but it is not obscure (per the evidence above).
:: We even keep redirects from typos (something I personally do not endorse unless it is for very common ones), so the threshold for inclusion is actually very low (also per WP:CHEAP). Basically, for redirects which are not misleading or total junk, the threshold is about where it would get in the way of something more useful. But getting redirected to the proper place is desirable, and not getting a hit in the search engine is the opposite of good user experience and not helpful to our target audience at all.
:: --Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like this would've been deleted uncontroversially if not for one novelist's usage. Since those novels are set in historical Europe, claiming such usage has introduced the term into modern English as a loanword seems rather premature and speculative. --BDD (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
:: What does this have to do with historical or modern English? The novelist in question is still alive and the books are modern works, even if set in a historical context. But even if the term would be used only historically, the fact that Kienspan is used as an English word satisfies the definition of loanword already. The only thing that is debatable is if it is in frequent use, and certainly it is not. But does this really matter? The redirect is useful per the criteria given in our guideline on redirects (outlined and referred to in details above already), and it is not in the way of another page, so why delete it? Even if it only helps a few people / readers of the books, still it does. Deleting it does not help anyone. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
:::Yes, frequency of usage very much matters. See WP:RFD#DELETE #8 ("novel or obscure synonym"). WP:NEO is a similar policy, if not specifically about redirects. --BDD (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
:::: Yep, I mentioned WP:RDELETE #8 as well already, but I see it being more than neutralized by WP:RKEEP #3 and #5, and also backed up by WP:RPURPOSE #1 and #8. Wikipedia would be a pale shadow of itself if we would only cover mainstream topics - in fact, the less common topics are the most interesting ones (for as long as they are properly sourced, of course). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2020 (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.
