Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanukkah bush

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 00:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hanukkah bush

Note: This was re-nominated for deletion on 2 October 2005, having previously been nominated on 5 September and kept. Technical errors in the nomination process made it appear that this discussion was closed, possibly discouraging participation. Therefore I have re-listed it in the 3 October log to give people a chance to see the discussion in this revised form, without the "discussion closed" notice. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete immediately It is suggested that this page be either deleted or I will move it to "Jewish Christmas Tree", because of the simple fact that it is a neologism and should be removed in accordance with WP:POINT. It is offensive to both Christians and Jews alike considering that it is a ripoff of the traditionally Christian decoration of a tree at December. Jordain 19:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, because none of the nominator's reasons are valid. In detail: Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  1. It's not a neologism, the term being in widespread and frequent use for decades as shown by the source citations on the page.
  2. The Christmas tree is not "traditionally Christian." As far as I know, Christmas trees are not mentioned in the New Testament. If I'm wrong, please provide a citation. Our article on Christmas trees discusses this in detail and suggests that the practice either originated as a pagan custom, or as a nonreligious celebration originating in 18th-century Germany (which was objected to by at least one priest specifically as not being Christian).
  3. Even if it were considered offensive, the appropriate remedy would not be to delete the article, but make sure the article is neutral, by providing proper, well-sourced material showing to whom it is considered offensive. The article already addresses the differences of opinions between Jews in some detail. I am not aware of any widespread objections by Christians, but if there are, please provide properly sourced commentary for inclusion in the article.
  4. I don't see how WP:POINT applies, because nothing the actions and procedures surrounding this article were disruptive to Wikipedia.
  5. The article was discussed in AfD very recently. In its present form, it received fourteen keep votes and no delete votes. (For some reason Jordain did not vote in the first AfD, even though it is clear he or she was aware of the article.) Dpbsmith (talk) 20:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It should not be moved to "Jewish Christmas tree" for the following reasons. Unlike Hanukkah bush, "Jewish Christmas tree" is a neologism. This term is not used to any appreciable extent. Our naming conventions call for the use of the most common term; this is "Hanukkah bush," not "Jewish Christmas tree." This specific question of whether the article should be entitled Talk:Hanukkah bush on whether the article title should be Hanukkah bush or Jewish Christmas Tree resulted in four fairly strong opinions, all to the effect that it should remain at Hanukkah bush, and no dissenting opinions. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid informative and encyclopedic article on commonly used term/object. Nomination is another WP:POINT. Jayjg (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. The only WP:POINT I see here is Jordain's AfD nomination. Sorry, but you can't delete something just because the idea is offensive to you. If that were the case Wikipedia would comprise one article and it would be about something totally generic like clay. As for the article itself, I am judging it on its current incarnation. A quick look around the internet shows that there are a few examples of a Hanukkah bush in the manner it is described in the article... enough that I'm willing to let it stand for now, though it is scraping the edge of non-notability. I'd also recommend a cleanup tag as the article could be written a bit better.--Isotope23 20:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I, for one, find clay offensive. ;-) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I knew that statement would bring out the gloiophobes (or would that be pelophobe?) :) --Isotope23 14:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep good articles about marginal subjects, and anyway I have heard of this before. We do not delete articles because they are offensive. — brighterorange (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per Jayjg .Carioca 22:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Clear Keep; [[User:Jordain|Jordain]'s use of AfD is disruptive verging on vandalism. Dottore So 22:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dpbsmith. The fact that some people may be offended by the existence of Hanukkah bushes does not mean that they would necessarily be offended by an article about them provided it is written in a fair and factual way, although User:Jordain may disagree. Do not move; "Hanukkah bush" is the common term for this item. --Metropolitan90 23:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep and please do not relist this we already discussed it Yuckfoo 21:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per previous vote. Capitalistroadster 23:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep - Hannukah Harry needs a place to string those blue and white lights! -- BD2412 talk 23:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep with extreme prejudice. This AfD is absurd and should be removed as soon as possible. How many times do we have to vote on an article before the results are excepted. AfD is not about voting on the same article over and over again until a deletionist gets the result he/she wants.--Nicodemus75 00:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per everything already said. — ceejayoz ★ 00:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong & Speedy Keep. The nominator is simply ill-informed, and the issue was decided less than a month ago. MCB 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • strong keep. nomination and nominator are ridiculous. ericg ✈ 00:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep even though the idea might be offensive to some Jews (especially Orthodox), it is common and accepted by many Reform Jews. Furthermore, it has been rewritten. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep User:Jordain has demonstrated at the AfD for Terminology alteration a pronouncedly obvious POV agenda. AfD is virtually groundless. Xoloz 05:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep (but cleanup). Do not re-name to "Jewish Christmas tree" (which really would be a neologism and a violation of WP:POINT). --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as per Nicodemus75, MCB, and Angr. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-5 T 00:24:25 Z
  • Speedy Keep for the same reason I commented that this is real concept the last time. Crypticfirefly 03:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


PLEASE POST VOTES ABOVE THE FOLLOWING CLOSED DISCUSSION

[edit] Closed discussion from 5 September nomination of Hanukkah bush

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

Vanity / OR / neologism / nonsense (take your pick). - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 00:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC) Not any more though, since it's been rewritten. Keep this version. - ulayiti (talk) (my RfA) 16:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'll take nonsense/joke/hoax, not funny enough for BJAODN. --MCB 00:31, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten (Jewish version of Christmas tree). My delete vote was on the previous article, which was something unrelated about a mythical drug. Real Hanukkah bushes are somewhat of a cultural tradition and the new article is accurate. MCB
  • Delete Hoax. Jobe6 Image:Peru flag large.png 00:42, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per MCB. (Liberal, assimilationist Jewish families—at least in the New York suburb where I grew up—used to put up and decorate Christmas trees during the holiday season and refer to them as "Hanukkah bushes." This eHow article suggest that it is still common. In my experience this was understood to be a joke. There could conceivably be material on this topic, although I seriously doubt it merits its own article. And it's a tricky matter to discuss, because some Jews would probably not approve of the practice nor of the light-hearted name.) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Like Dpbsmith, when I was growing up in Chicago, some Jewish families that I knew also had a "Hanukkah Bush." The term is probably widespread, but I think it is better to delete this until the day someone feels up to writing a serious Hanukkah Bush article. Crypticfirefly 01:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm taking a crack at it. What the heck. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nonsense. Carioca 01:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete In Alabama, the Jewish friend I hung out with in High School always had a "Hanukkah bush" as well for the shared festival of the winter solstice (Sun Return). If such an article regarding that were actually created, it would not stand on its own but would need to be included with other holiday/festival articles. (After the passover feast, we dyed eggs, too.) --WCFrancis 01:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep as rewritten. I stand corrected, as well; it looks like it can stand on its own. --WCFrancis 03:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The article is different now. the original article, to which the nomination and comments above this line refer, was a transparent hoax or not very funny joke about "a recently discovered leaf-like drug" whose effects on "classmates" included laughter, memory loss, premeditated streaking, etc. The new article is intended to be, uh, for real. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. The article as it currently stands refers to the usage as cited by several voters on this topic. Capitalistroadster 01:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's not a joke or a hoax. It's not a universal jewish tradition, but I'd be surprised if any reform Jew hasn't at least heard the phrase since childhood. Nandesuka 02:36, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Please look at the article, which is now in excellent, highly sourced, NPOV shape. Sdedeo 02:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewritten stuff, certainly. Move to Hannukah bush, I'll speculate, looking at the article body.. -- Soir (say hi) 02:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep rewritten article; looks pretty good now. Jaxl | talk 03:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and move as per Soir. Andre (talk) 03:10, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten stuff. Carioca 03:27, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten, at this point. Too bad the original nonsense has to show up in the history, though. -- DS1953 03:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten.
  • Keep, nicely rewritten, but move to Hanukkah bush and make redirects for the myriad spellings of Hanukkah. Zoe 06:51, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zoe. - Mgm|(talk) 08:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this is typical for reform jews who are not yet unitarians. Klonimus 09:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as rewritten. Arevich 21:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep cleanup, wikifying, etc. needed though... -- WB 21:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Off-topic, but User:Jordain recently moved the article to Jewish Christmas Tree with the edit comment "Hanukkah bush moved to Jewish Christmas Tree: Name is insufficient, anti-Christian." This page currently has an audience of potentially interested editors, so anyone with opinions on this may wish to chime in at Talk:Hanukkah bush. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.