Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrismukkah

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 keep. It's been sourced to mainstream media, including Time and USA Today. The article could use a cleanup, though. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 04:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chrismukkah

Chrismukkah (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:SPAM. Article seems to exist primarily to promote marketing for the term; I already deleted one spam link to that effect. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 12:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Sorry, but I disagree. The article doesn't seem to be promoting anything... it talks about Chrismukkah.com in an attempt to establish a point about the term Chrismukkah. Also, this goes beyond WP:NEO, because although the specific term Chrismukkah may be new and not in heavy usage, the practice of fusing Christmas and Hanukkah in interfaith households is a legit topic, and I'm not sure where else it should be covered (though if it's already discussed elsewhere, redirection may be an option). This does need cleaning up and sourcing, but in my view that's an achievable goal for this article. Mangojuice^talk 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Don't you people watch The O.C.? And I'm from a mixed family and we totally call our Holidays Chrismukkah. Not that that's evidence, but you know... jengod 19:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• keep A rather poor article, but on a appropriate topic DGG 19:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not the place for things that are not notable yet but may be in the future. The assertion that this general topic of fusing holidays is inherently notable a) needs a source in and of itself and b) doesn't mean that this particular article is legit.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant Keep. However much this article reads as a vehicle for the website and however much the very concept turns my stomach, there's been mainstream media play, and that much has been sourced. RGTraynor 19:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The assertion that this is a valid holiday is false and while there are references, the content of these is more to talk about interfaith households and December holidays, not to reinforce the use of the word "Chrismukkah." Let's not confuse the concept of households celebrating both Christmas and Chanukah with thinking that there is such a thing as "Chrismukkah" beyond a few pop culture references. I might be inclined to keep, only if the article were changed significantly to mention that the term exists specifically as a pop culture refence as per jengod's note. Crunch 12:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The problem is that "I don't agree with it" isn't a valid reason to delete an article; our job isn't to weigh in on the advocacy issue or whether this is a "valid holiday" (and how is that defined?) one way or another. The issue is whether the subject meets verification and notability standards. Unfortunately, it does. RGTraynor 15:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Understood. But the article as written, with the intro, "Chrismukkah is the modern-day merging of the holidays of Christianity's Christmas and Judaism's Hanukkah as celebrated in interfaith households where one parent may be of Christian heritage and another parent of Jewish heritage." is so far removed from an accurate description of what it should be that the entire intent of the article is missing. It should be: "Chrismukkah is a term coined in some early twentieth century popular culture references to describe the merging of the holidays of Christianity's Christmas and Judaism's Hanukkah as celebrated in interfaith households where one parent may be of Christian heritage and another parent of Jewish heritage." and take it from there. What I object to is the creation of an article as a statement of fact when in reality -- see comment from Shlomke below, we are really just taking a neologism and declaring it to be an actual entity. Crunch 01:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Another comment You might look at Chrismahanukwanzakah which opens with the statement that it is "a fictional holiday" and references Chrismukkah as another fictional holiday. This article should be treated the same way. I'd be willing to change my vote to Keep and edit if we can agree on that. Crunch 01:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as for better or worse the term is in use due to intermarriage. IZAK 12:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as seems to violate WP:NEO. Wikipedia should not be the place to coin new terms. Perhaps the subject can be covered by a different article name. Shlomke 17:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I have to echo Jengod: don't you guys watch The OC? I don't watch it myself, but I'm still very familiar with the Chrismukkah name and concept simply from surrounding media coverage. There are 90,300 Google hits for "chrismukkah -oc", most of which don't seem to be directly related to the show, and it's very easy to imagine that someone would look up the phrase here for more information. I also added two citations (both from 12/04) to the article yesterday. Propaniac 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RGTraynor and IZAK. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an adequate reason to delete, the term appears enough in pop culture to be notable and reliably sourced. Agree, however, that article should be clearer to describe the origins of the term as arising in pop culture rather than religion, although agree that the term has sometimes been used in the context of issues of intermarriage. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep You might be able to argue that the article could discuss the subject under a different title, but the term "Chrismukkah" is used widely enough that even then, it would still make sense to redirect "Chrismukkah" to that article. Mwelch 10:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per RGTraynor and IZAK. -- Olve 18:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Heh ... and it isn't that IZAK and I agree on a whole heck of a lot. RGTraynor 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• keepclearly notable and encyclopediac. --Sefringle 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - article could use very good cleanup, but this is still a notable term that has become quite well known. -- Fuzheado | Talk 21:46, 13 March 2007 (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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.