Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanukkah Harry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. The fact that the article has changed heavily during the debate, especially with referencing, affirms this close. If anyone feels that this deserves another run at AfD in its' new state, please, go right ahead and nominate it again. However, a lot of this debate focused on the old version, and the 'no consensus' closure seems to be the right option given this and the change in the debate as the edits were made, below. Daniel Bryant 09:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hanukkah Harry

Hanukkah_Harry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I am Jewish so don't consider this to be antisemitic. I have never heard of Hannukah Harry and I was a kid when the term was ALLEGEDLY coined. Without any sources, it appears to be an original essay. Unless the author or someone else can verify that Hannukah Harry is as legitimate a term/idea as Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, it must be gone based on the fact it is an original essay. Postcard Cathy 12:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete I'm jewish, have never heard of this and can't find any hits. Besides, everyone knows the Jewish santa is the Holiday Armadillo — iridescenti (talk to me!) 20:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable SNL skit. Pete.Hurd 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Well, I'm not going to shed any tears if it gets deleted because there's pretty much nothing worth saving, but there are a few google hits [1]. Also, I know "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, but using, Recurring Saturday Night Live characters and sketches as a benchmark it's tough to see why this one is less notable than most of these. I think that, more than most SNL sketches, this character could actually have a decent article, given a complete re-write.Chunky Rice 22:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unsourced and unencyclopedic :"that all Jewish families have heard of" -- pure imagination, apparently invented one day after the Hanukkah bush that is an actual imitation tradition. DGG 00:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Recurring? I only remember one SNL appearance for this character. DarkAudit 01:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    Two, according to Short-lived_recurring_characters_on_Saturday_Night_Live#Hanukkah Harry Pete.Hurd 03:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: !Votes cast as listed above were based on the original text of the article, before it was rewritten. See this link for diffs
  • Keep The existing article was completely rewritten. Details on the two SNL skits in which the character appears are provided, with sources. Additionally references to how the character has seeped into popular culture as a personification of Hanukkah to correspond to Santa are provided from some notable media sources. A Google News search finds several dozen articles that mention the character, including some meaty references. While I don't think the SNL appearances constitute notability, the media references demonstrate that the character is indeed becoming a part of our culture. Alansohn 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment The same author cut and pasted the original article under the title Chanukah Harry. I put that up for afd as well. Postcard Cathy 03:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I changed the page into a redirect. If this article is kept, it should probably stay as such. Also, Keep based on re-write.Chunky Rice 03:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment Now those are references! ;) I personally don't think a character with only two SNL appearances in the 80s warrants an article, but not so much to endorse for or against this vastly improved article. DarkAudit 13:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you elaborate as to what part you think is original research? Chunky Rice 16:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Offensive to whom? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Chunky Rice and Iridescenti: Thank you for asking. Ok, it's like this: Hanukkah, as you may well know, is a very important Jewish holiday celebrated by many Jews (as it has been for over two thousand years) so the adding of the word "Harry" which basically means a "nerd" or a "loser" is insulting to Judaism and the Jewish people, regardless if it makes for great entertainment. He's not a "Jewish Santa Klaus" at all (who are we kidding?), it's more like creating Christmas Buffoon, or Ramadan Donkey, which would not be very nice, to say the least. (See what happened in the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy as an example how these kind of things can go gravely wrong, when so-called popular culture clashes with religiuous sensibilities!) So would it be ok if negative depictions of Jews from Der Stürmer were thrown at us as part of some "popular culture" in another place and time? (Such as the recent Iranian "brainwave" International Holocaust Cartoon Competition -- some "Cartoon" some "Comptetition"!) This "Hanukkah Harry" seems to be a new incarnation of Fagin and Shylock in hip form. That's the offensive part. The opening line of this article is pure OR: "Hanukkah Harry...has seeped into popular culture as a Jewish counterpart to Santa Claus for the Hanukkah season." Oh yeah? That's news to a lot of people. Which "popular culture" is this exactly? And this piece of fanciful nonsense: "Building on these two SNL appearances, Hanukkah Harry has been referenced as a personification of Hanukkah to correspond to Santa Claus throughout the media" -- so now "Hanukkah Harry" is a "referenced personification" of a major Jewish holiday, created presto by some backroom scriptwriters? This is like saying that the Swedish Chef is now a "referenced personification" of Sweden, or that Speedy Gonzales is a "referenced personification" of Mexicans -- all of which is very laughable to any serious scholar. But at least the Swedish Chef and Speedy Gonzales don't have to skirt issues of religion and antisemitism which Harry Hanukkah borders on, albeit subtly. IZAK 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree with you about the original research, since it's clear from the citations (and a quick google search) that the character has been used outside the context of the SNL sketch.
Second, as to whether or not it's offensive, I don't see how that's relevant to this discussion. Being offensive is not, in of itself, grounds for deletion.Chunky Rice 17:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and merge into (or replace) Short-lived_recurring_characters_on_Saturday_Night_Live#Hanukkah_Harry on a page with many SNL characters. Probably also link and add a stub into Saturday_Night_Live_TV_show_sketches. Fellow WPP:J folks et alia, I agree that SNL may offend but that doesn't make this skit any less notable than other SNL stuff in en:WP. It's amazing how many SNL characters already have their own articles. Of course, redundant content/articles should be merged and NPOV corrected. But it looks like you've already gotten the editors to clean it up and reference it sufficiently for notability. HG 16:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Not really anymore. This page is nothing like it was when it was nominated. DarkAudit 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a popular culture topic, not a Judaism one, It's adequately sourced and notable as a popular culture topic, and therefore there is no policy reason not to keep it, whether WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Shirahadasha 18:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hanukkah Harry "exists" and is notable. --Eliyak T·C 19:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirrect to Short-lived_recurring_characters_on_Saturday_Night_Live#Hanukkah_Harry. In general I don't like articles being created "from the bottom up" that is lots of small articles that are then (if they are found) referenced via {{main}} it creates a sloppy and haphazard treatment of the subject matter. Articles series should be made from the top down. When an article gets too big then branch of smaller part into sub-articles (again using a {{main}}). Short-lived_recurring_characters_on_Saturday_Night_Live is an immature article and there is no need to branch off into sub-article especially when the information is not that large. Jon513 20:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep seems relatively sourced (better than most); if its only occurrence was on SNL, a redirect as per Jon513 would be in order, although the article seems to note that Harry shows up elsewhere, whether these elsewheres merely parrot the SNL Harry or embellish or legitimize him beyond his origins I cannot say but seems to stand to reason that if NPR has covered it, it's notable enough to stay. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Note to closing admin: many of the comments seem to be about the state of the article prior to a large re-write, you would do well to consider them in this light. Carlossuarez46 21:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 'Delete NN. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 21:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply Generally, "Delete NN" votes are frowned upon. Is there any particular aspect of the rewritten article that fails notability? Can the article be further improved to address your concerns? Alansohn 23:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This cahracter does not apepar to ahve a general presnece in folk or popular cluture -- the acharacter appears to have appeared in two SNL skits and a few scattered references to them. That is not enough, IMO, for indipendant notability. particualrly becaue the article could be read to imply that this character has becoem a genuine folk character comparable to Santa Claus, which is simply not the case. DES (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. To judge by the article this is a character who appeared some years ago on a couple of SNL skits. No evidence that it has entered wider culture. In no way forms a part of Jewish culture or sub-culture. --Smerus 08:13, 8 May 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.