Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newtonmas

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 keep. --Terence Ong ^Talk 04:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newtonmas

Newtonmas was nominated last year, on 2004-12-24. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newtonmas/2004-12-24.

This celebration and the traditions appear to be nothing more than the invention of Gordon Worley. Google shows most mentions are mirrors to wikipedias or sites linking back to Gordon Worley's own site. None of the non-encyclopedia sites appear to have any mention of this 'celebration' dating from the last two years unless they are referring to this Wikipdia article itself. It would appear the article itself is perpetuating the celebration. I vote for delete. Evil Eye 23:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Neutral - I do find it worthwhile to celebrate Newton's birthday but I can't say I support this ridiculous name. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. OK, time to come clean. By now I think I probably have as much personal experience with Newtonmas as anyone. Not self-initiated even: When I was a young adolescent my science teacher had an annual tradition of having his religiously diverse class celebrate Newtonmas as a "neutral" winter holiday. There was no "secular" bend to it, just a pro-science one. We had a little tree with apples and calculators hanging from it, and we ate pasta (manicotti I think), which according to our teacher was "Newton's favorite food". It was fun. Maybe I should make a website about it, and then I'll be an expert source like Gordon Whorley!--Pharos 23:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• delete. No source cited after all this time means it is original work. Obina 23:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, Gordon Whorley's a source. And Robin Zebrowski of Flickr (Newtonmas 2004) (Newtonmas 2005) is a source. And I'll be a source if I have to! This isn't a made-up celebration.--Pharos 23:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Both Gordon and Robin have connections or interests in the academic world of Artificial Intelligence, so maybe one passed the holiday onto the other. Besides, since when has the blog of one person, the picture album of another and the science teacher of the third constituted enough evidence for the notability of a holiday? Evil Eye 00:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; The word seems to be in use. Clean up and cite as necessary. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 23:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sources seem very problematic. -- JJay 00:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism once removed. Consider this the opening shot in the War on Newtonmas. Endomion 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment.I think a source is something published, not the opinion of any editor.Obina 01:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't a neologism; it's a holiday over 10 or 20 years old. Usenet postings go back to 1992, and a user on Talk:Newtonmas very credibly says to have made a radio broadcast about Newtonmas back in 1984. Look, I'm not saying it's the most popular holiday. But many people have heard of it, and a small but real group of people do celebrate it. Unlike high schools or something, there aren't that many small holidays; there's no reason to have an overly exculsive criterion of notability for them.--Pharos 01:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Me and some friends could devise a new holiday tomorrow involving a historical figure. We could celebrate it, tell people about it and mention it on forums we go to, in emails, on our blogs and post pictures of us celebrating it. This will let people beyond the group who celebrate it know about the new holiday. We could do this for several years. We would be a small but real group of people who celebrate this holiday. But would it make the holiday notable? I think not. Also, looking over the edits on Talk:Newtonmas, the person who added the info about the radio transmission appears to be quoting source written by Michael Morotta, who wrote an page linked to in the main article, so this radio broadcast was carried out by one of the few people we've already got associated with NewtonmasEvil Eye 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Even if it's someone's kooky creation it seems to have caught on some. It may not get that many Google hits, but it gets what(for lack of a better word) I'll call "quality Google hits." The York Daily Record mentions it[1]. At Google News it's mentioned at some Wessex paper.[2] The idea of celebrating Newton's birthday is certainly not this guys invention. If we can actually have Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians this seems a slam-dunk easy keep.--T. Anthony 03:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That's doesn't follow at all; the article namespace has very different standards from the user namespace. Doops | talk 06:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I saw this on the selected anniversaries on the main page for the 25th, and since then I've been trying to figure out the purpose of this page or Newtonmas in general. (Notorious4life 07:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC))
• Keep. I had already heard about this before I read the Wikipedia article. It's notable in certain humanist subcultures. The decision whether a celebration is notable enough to be featured on the Main Page should be separate from the decision whether there can be an article about it.--Eloquence* 08:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keepesque. This just about flies over the notability radar. I'd let it stick around for another year, maybe two. --Agamemnon2 09:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hardly notable, small google test (654 including WP clones) BACbKA 11:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete'. It isn't notable. GhePeU 13:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've heard about this from Slovenian physics students before Wikipedia existed, so it obviously has some existance. Better sources would be helpful. Zocky 19:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per T. Antony's evidence, and since it's notable enough to have a "War on Newtonmas" declared. Kappa 22:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I had heard of this holiday well before I read it on Wikipedia. It is commonly mentioned in scientific circles, and I've often heard about it in science classes as a pro-science way to celebrate the holidays. Tigerhawkvok 23:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Tigerhawkvok. WikiFanatic 01:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep: Newtonmas is certainly interesting enough to keep. Whether it's real enough is shakier, but I'll take the word of the various editors who vouch for it above. I do think the "traditions" § should go, though -- it seems to be entirely inspired by the suggestions in Gordon Worley's blog. Also, since the wikipedia isn't a soapbox, Newtonmas probably shouldn't be in mainpage selected anniversaries until its popularity begins to approach that of Festivus. Doops | talk 05:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since it should be Hookemas ;-) Actually this should be an article about Gordon Worley if he's notable, but Newtonmas itself is a conceit and really is not widely observed. It's a bit like the joke religions we delete all the time. Except that in this case it at least has a worthy aim. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 11:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keepish I just noticed the article on Wikipedia, (I saw Newtonmas as a link in the "See also" section of the Christmas article) but I had also heard of it way before this. It was a cute surprise to see there was article for it. Al-Andalus 16:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This "holiday" seems to have all the exact same (secular) aspects as Christmas, therefore it's simply an atheistic celebration of the secular Christmas, not a seperate holiday. PatrickA 07:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

Comment. From just above-- Not to mention, Newtonmas is hardly a secular holiday when you consider not only was Newton a famous scientist, but he was much more into the (Christian) Bible than science. Also, in accordance with the currently used Gregorian calendar, Newton's birthday should accurately be celebrated on 4 January, not 25 December. PatrickA 08:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC).

No, that's not true. It is not customary to recalculate pre-Gregorian dates. Doops | talk 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And even if it was, what difference, would that make? Newton was both a Christian and a scientist; you're just giving your personal criticism of how Newton is commemorated– what does this have to do with notability?--Pharos 22:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I created the Wikipedia page and wrote my blog entry about it because numerous people had discussed Newtonmas with me. At the original time of my blog article's creation, there was very little you could find on the Internet about Newtonmas. The holiday is becoming more visible on the Internet and I've read several blogs where the writers have mentioned either celebrating it or at least observing it. To me, people are looking for information on Newtonmas, so Wikipedia should try its best to supply that information. G Gordon Worley III 16:15, 31 December 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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.