Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth the Great

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 Elizabeth Jenkins (writer)#Biographer. This is a messy discussion. There is reasonably clear consensus that "Elizabeth the Great" as a descriptor for Elizabeth II doesn't quite hold water at this time. There's less clear consensus as to what to do with the title; there's many "delete" opinions, but without an articulated rationale for obliterating the page history, I'm interpreting those as "this DAB page should not exist as it does". The argument for redirecting to the biographer has decent support, and has a basis in DABMENTION. Some !votes suggest deleting before redirecting, but I see no basis in policy to remove the history; this discussion prevents unilateral restoration of the DAB page anyhow. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth the Great

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not a plausible search term, bad disambigs— one is a book title, not a common nickname, and the other is extremely WP:recentist Dronebogus (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as creator: This has 219 pageviews since the 8th, so I'm not sure how it can be an implausible search term. Both linked articles pass MOS:DABMENTION, and I was careful to avoid the pitfall of linking to Elizabeth I and Elizabeth II (which both currently fail DABMENTION). This is a term people are looking for, and the DAB takes people to either of two pages that explain the two contexts in which it's been used. That is the exact purpose of a disambiguation page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:02, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh also, Dronebogus, can you clarify: Do you want this deleted, or do you want to restore Tavix' redirect to Queen Elizabeth, or to restore Heroeswithmetaphors's redirect to Elizabeth I? Targeting Elizabeth Jenkins (writer) § Biographer—matching Elizabeth the Great (biography), currently the only other page with that title—would also be an option. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want it deleted but a redirect to the bio is fine Dronebogus (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid disambiguation page. This would be a reasonable redirect to either target, so a disambiguation page is fine. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the person trawling around various talk pages to try to get input on this (btw, if someone might mention this discussion on the semi-protected talk page Talk:Elizabeth II, as clearly I personally can't): I agree there's a degree of recentism here, but given that it's a navigation aid rather purported substantive, I don't see that as a terrible vice. And indeed, both subjects (the actual people that is, rather than subsidiary articles) fail MOS:DABMENTION, as does a third candidate who is sometimes so-called -- just not in our article -- Elizabeth of Russia. In terms of long-term appropriateness I'd guess that QE1 > EoR > QE2, but the long-term can look after itself. At present I'm inclined to say weak keep as threeway DAB to all three of above primary subjects, notwithstanding the three-way failure to actually mention the phrase in those articles. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to adding an entry relating to Elizabeth of Russia if there's somewhere to point to, but at the moment Special:Search/"Elizabeth of Russia" "Elizabeth the Great" has 0 results. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, DABMENTION-wise it's a three-way fail. But there are off-wiki references to the Tsarina as "the Great" -- the Russians are maybe rather Great-happy. As a navigational courtesy I think it makes sense; in terms of a strict reading of out style guidance, due weight, and having reliable sources possibly not: but that's true of all of them. And to be clear, I'm suggesting the targets should be Elizabeth I, Elizabeth of Russia and Elizabeth II. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose that. There are times that it makes sense to IAR around DABMENTION, but I don't see why this ought to be one of them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of IAR, but I'd argue this is more in the realm of WP:COMMONSENSE (with the usual "no such thing, and neither of those" stipulations). Or more specifically, "don't apply one particular piece of style guidance beyond the point of utility". Ultimately, DABs are there to disambiguate descriptions of topics, not exact textual descriptions. The above are sometimes so-described -- otherwise we wouldn't bother having the page at all -- and we have articles on all three of the topics being specified, albeit editors have deemed mentioning it not to be due weight to mention the phrase. So arguably, we're outside of the scope of DABMENTION here: "If a topic does not have an article of its own [...]." We need enough context in the DAB page itself to avoid too much WP:ASTONISHment for people looking for discussion of the exact phrase -- which currently they won't even find in the 'reactions' article for Liz2, so an unduly roundabout wild goose chase there. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tamzin. Useful and proper disambiguation page. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it does no harm and may be useful to some readers; more so as a dab page than the redirect it replaced. Waggers TALK 12:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elizabeth II– term is pretty much never used for the other individuals given that the article didn’t even exist until a few days ago. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other way around. It's been a redirect to Elizabeth I for a decade, and there's book-length sources describing her as such. Descriptions of Liz2 as the Great are recentist boosterism, churned out as performant, hagiographic royalism and ostentatious rending of garments by a few notoriously bumptious and self-serving individuals. Unlikely to be of any long-term historical significance, but readers may come looking in the meantime. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. It targeted Elizabeth I from 2012 to 2015, but then Queen Elizabeth from then until I created the DAB the other day. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:55, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "it was created a decade ago as a redirect to Liz1", I should have said. My lamentable lack of precision doesn't change the counterpoint being made. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid Dab page. MB 15:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aren't we kinda getting carried away here? GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen, Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II does not mention this term, meaning it is not a useful disambiguation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning that it's been given the wrong target. The topic in each case is the person so-described, not subsidiary articles (that the term keeps flipping in and out of). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it means that "...as referred to in some reactions to her death" is a bit too much right now as it appears misleading if it doesn't appear in the body of the text. Not only that, but there are now people who are trying to have her be referred to as "Elizabeth the Faithful." I think that it is odd why this was a redirect to Elizabeth II since 2015 when the disambig references reactions to her passing in 2022 and doesn't even have the text used. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article quotes Boris Johnson using the term in footnote 16. (Contra 109, I think this links to the exact right pages, so long as neither queen's article uses the term.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a quote in a reference, rather than a footnote as such. I think that's an extremely slight 'mention' to hang targeting the link at on, given that we have an entire article on each of the substantive topics as a much more generally useful target. In the alternative, list the book and the 'reactions' as separate DAB entries. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen – far too recentist. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To refer to Elizabeth I and Elizabeth of Russia? The apocryphal Mao quote about the French Revolution springs to mind! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're getting ahead of our selves. 'Elizabeth the Great' i've never seen used for Elizabeth II apart from people on Wikipedia insisting it is her title. (personally I don't see what the fuss is all about), I think it should point to Yelizaveta Romanova and Elizabeth Tudor if it is to stay at all. There aren't many 'Queen Elizabeths' as is. EmilySarah99 (talk) 08:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar The delete votes make no sense. This page gets a lot of views, so something should exist here; if not a dab page, then it should be redirected somewhere, as it did for over a decade. Mdewman6 (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Trouble is we're left with a choice between a middling-quality DAB, or a worse-quality redirect. But stonewalling visitors to it to let the perfect be the enemy of the... admittedly at best moderately good, is kinda spiting ourselves. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reason given above by User:109.255.211.6 and EmilySarah99. --Bduke (talk) 02:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elizabeth_Jenkins_(writer)#Biographer oder delete. Per WP:DABRELATED, we are to [i]nclude articles only if the term being disambiguated is actually described in the target article. For the second article, Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II, the term is not mentioned in the article's text, much less described, so it should not be included in the dab page. The fact that an article has a footnoted citation to a news piece with a headline that contains the phrase does not render that article a valid dab target; contrary to the article creator's claim that the fact that the article quotes Boris Johnson using the term in footnote 16 is enough to warrant inclusion in a disambiguation page, it would be plainly absurd to claim that this qualifies as the term being described in the target article. Moreover, for this to be a valid disambiguation page, there would need to be more than one article that is a valid target; we cannot have a valid dab page for which only one article exists. given that we only have one valid target, this should be either retargeted to Elizabeth_Jenkins_(writer)#Biographer, a section of a biography that describes a 1958 book by the title "Elizabeth the Great" or it should be deleted altogether. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to Liz's question regarding whether or not there is a logical use for a page with this title whether or not it is the use it currently has, I think that the only possible sensible use is in a redirect given that it's mentioned in the text of a single article. A search indicates that there is use of the biography as a source, but there's only one article that actually mentions the term "Elizabeth the Great". — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that speaks to whether it has a use, but rather whether it's MOS-compliant as a DAB. Which latter I agree it's not. The use being to mitigate the amount of WP:ASTONISHment that readers looking for the Liz1-related content will experience getting sent there without much in the way of context, and the huge such that readers looking for either of the other two would get in such a case. So I think 'use' speaks to retaining it, flawed though it is. In the longer term redirecting to Liz1 (or that related article) might be a good solution, but in the short run I think we'd be misdirecting almost all our traffic to that target, out of misguided legalism. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar Are there numerous RS's that show that Elizabeth the Great is commonly used? InvadingInvader (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Numerous" and "commonly" would be marginal. It's certainly adequately sourceable: we have the major reference of the Liz1 bio, and many WP:RECENT mentions of people floating the term for Liz2. But the articles don't deem them to be of sufficient weight to bother mentioning. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the book The term is too recent to be linked to Liz II imo, and there is well established book with that title. Unless and until we have a book of the same title for Liz II, this DAB makes no sense to me. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen. One book and some instances of current usage (no doubt influenced by her death) do not establish that she was/is generally known that way. Kablammo (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two different 'she's, note. Hence the logic if it being a DAB, not a redirect. And 'generally known' isn't the applicable standard here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting though I sense that individuals with differing opinions will think there is an obvious consensus but I don't see it and people are still commenting here today. There are several points of view here (Keep, Delete, several different Redirects) and I think editors participating here should look through the comments that have already have been made and the rationales those editors have given for their opinions. My question is whether or not there is a logical use for a page with this title whether or not it is the use it currently has.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen. Far too WP:RECENT. Let's re-assess in, say 80 years. Thparkth (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The most likely individual described by this term has been dead for over 400 years (and the biography most prominently doing so's been around for getting on for the 80 years you suggest), so only WP:TOOSOON in the most extreme eventualist of takes. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the book. Neither person has been notably referred to by that term. DFlhb (talk) 21:18, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this qualifies as a disambiguation page. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct to the book or Delete per Red-tailed Hawk. DeCausa (talk) 10:39, 27 September 2022 (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.