Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christmas

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 of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secularization of Christmas

I created this article because of arguments at War on Christmas that there was more to the secularization of Christmas than the Fox News campaign regarding the subject. I thought that, if there were more to say about it, if the topic were worth exploring, the proponents of such an exploration could do so here. They did not, and the article has sputtered into POV original research, if anything. As I said I would upon creation of the article, because the article has not proven its merit or Wikiworth, I hereby nominate it for deletion. JDoorjam 23:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to War on Christmas. There are probably parts that can be saved and be of valuable insight on the other article.--Mitsukai 00:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with War on Christmas, and I think Secularization of Christmas is a better title. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 00:57Z
• Keep separate, delete if article doesn't eventually prove itself. I agree with your sentiments JDoorjam - there is more going on than the Fox News campaign, though this article doesn't really show it (at this stage). I think there is also a significant problem with the title 'War on Christmas' - it is inherently POV. 'Theory of the War on Christmas' would escape this. Willardo 01:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with War on Christmas. --Terence Ong 01:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect as per above. Not seeing how the title "War on Christmas" is POV. That's the self-described term used by those involved. There's a book by that title featured on the WoC page. Turnstep 03:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with merging; as for POVness, I don't see how usage of the term by those involved makes it an NPOV term. For example, you wouldn't name the Religion and sexual orientation article a certain phrase just because Westboro Baptist Church uses it. This isn't the place for this discussion though, so I won't say any more. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-15 13:19Z

• Merge and redirect, with careful attention and a large can of NPOV-spray. Stifle 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with War on Christmas. It also seems to me that the article is very centred on the USA when criticism that Christmas is being secularised also occurs in Australia and Europe and probably other places too. War on Christmas can be made NPOV, but it might need a change of title. Bduke 02:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect. In and of itself, "Secularization of Christmas" may smack of less POV, but since we have only original research to say that such a thing exists, I believe it's actually more neutral to limit the article to what IS verifiable (and largely refutable), which is the description of secularization outlined by FOX, et al. Consider these options for article titles: "Secularization of Christmas", "Perceived secularization of Christmas," "Purported secularization of Christmas," -- these all carry different POVs, whereas "War on Christmas," as the title of an influential book, is undeniably "a thing" which can be discussed without POV. --Dystopos 15:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with War on Christmas as per above. 24.222.79.90 01:29, 20 January 2006 (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.