Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satan claus

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 Delete - while probably not made up by the author, the article as it stands is original research. Yomangani^talk 14:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satan claus

Doesn't cite sources, and appears to be something someone made up in school one day. P.B. Pilhet / Talk 23:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not only is it clearly a contrived and convoluted argument, but some statements within it are untrue. Christ did not have a white beard, and Santa Claus is not depicted with a crown of thorns.--Anthony.bradbury 23:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
• Everyone knows there ain't no satany clause. Delete. Tubezone 00:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as something sailing very close to being total bilge. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete utter garbagola SkierRMH 00:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as likely neologism and possibly original research. eaolson 00:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete patent nonsense. Danny Lilithborne 01:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment No opinion for now, but I will note that the idea is not original research or nonsense. For example it shows up in the book Wyrm. I may need to search but I believe that Martin Gardener mentioned the anagram part in a column a few years ago. The issue therefore is more notability than original research. JoshuaZ 02:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It should also be observed that, even were there no sources at all toward the notability of the idea and even were the article entirely OR (as well it may be) and substantively nonsensical, it would nevertheless not be speediable as G1; whilst Wikipedia:Patent nonsense itself is but a guideline, G1 generally commands, qua policy, a consensus for the view that patent nonsense should be construed very narrowly, IAR and SNOW notwithstanding and even where the underlying article is almost surely unencyclopedic and will not survive AfD (toward which, see, e.g., this CSD talk thread). As (aeropagitica) notes infra, G4 might be understood as applicable here, but ostensibly does not entail because (a) the prior deletion was speedy and (b) the criterion underlying the previous deletion–{{nonsense}}–was likely improperly applied. It is quite right to say that, as regards this article in specific, process isn't particularly important, but the import of process is at its peak where speedy deletion is considered. Joe 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Cautious Keep Let this article stand for a a few weeks. Do not speedy delete. Assume that this article was written in good faith. I've sent a message to the user who created the article, mabye he can weigh in. There is a movie made with this title[1]. The article needs improvement, but if no evidence is offered to support the information, then I'll waive my decision to support this article. RiseRobotRise 03:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment Regarding the film, IMDB's entry on it would strongly suggest that the only reason the name is the same is because the film's about a serial killer dressed as Santa, not the religiously (and other things) based arguments here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete patent nonsense. Do not assume good faith for what is obviously utter idiocy / piece of utter moronism. There's a limit to everything and good faith can only go so far and no further. "Santa" means "saint". If it looks like "satan" to you that's your problem. Let's not be completely silly. --Ekjon Lok 04:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Further comment who has ever heard about Santa being omniscient and omnipresent? Who has ever heard about Jesus having a white beard? Creator is obviously some random vandal. --Ekjon Lok 04:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness' sake sounds like a claim of omniscience to me, but this article reads like stuff someone made up. I agree there is a good argument to be made for the Creator being a random vandal, He certainly seems to have created a few. Tubezone 05:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR. However, "He sees you when you're sleeping..." and Revelations 1:14; [[Jesus'] head and [His] hairs [were] white like wool, as white as snow. ReverendG 05:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a repost of speedily deleted material. (aeropagitica) 09:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: pure nonsense as an article. --Moreau36 17:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I can see where you guys are coming from when you say all this...I am completely new to wikipedia, but I was reading about this theory one day on the internet and was very curious about it. A lot of people beleive it and I don't want you to beleive that it's all true, however, it's what some people beleive, and the points are all true. For example...Heaven may not be real...but it will still be in wikipedia under what some people beleive, not necessarily as a fact. For reference. They aren't made up. Jesus DID have white hair- (Rev. 1:14). I wish someone who is good at this could recreate the page since I obviously didn't do so well. I'm sorry for wasting your time...and for maybe screwing this page up. --Sbarkfe 02:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment I've read some of the web pages equating Santa Claus with Satan, while I do not think the theory particularly notable (as I see it, the logic required to come to the conclusion is excessively contorted at best, but some folks believe it), you ought to retitle the article (say, "Theories that Santa is a version of Satan" .. "Satan Claus" is going to get vandalized and put up for AfD, to, ahem, beat hell), spell and capitalize properly (that's a red flag for people looking for hoaxes) and reference everything to, ahem, beat hell. Point out that this is a belief that enough folks have to make it notable, don't try to prove it. JMHO. Tubezone 06:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment When I assumed good faith, I assumed correctly. I'm glad you understand where the other editors were coming from, but don't let this discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia in the future. As Wikipeida needs as much help as it can get. I've left a message on your talk space giving you some helpful advice. As for now, I'll let my vote on Keep stand for the remainder on this AFD. RiseRobotRise 04:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you give the guy a chance?, who do you think you are? god.. if you look at all the facts santa was created on a whym, theres no real reason the santa should hvae ever been created? Keep this article because it is a theory. also for all those Nay sayers... merry christmas satan--Donthiel 15:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as nonsense. TheRealFennShysa 20:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as almost total junk. "Claus can be rearranged to spell "Lucas" which resembles Lucifer." C'mon.... CenozoicEra 20:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Granted the idea that Santa is unChristian is bruited around quite a bit. The Puritans banned celebration of Christmas on the grounds that it's basically pagan. And many religious are unhappy with the Christmas in general as celebrated these days, including Santa (and also Christmas trees, etc.). That's an article worth writing. But this ain't it. "Satan Clause" does not appear to be a real term in any real circulation. Herostratus 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Nicholas is not known as a name for the devil in Germany. I never heard of this in 41 years here in Germany! And the anagram "Santa" for "Satan" was just a joke, I think it was from a movie! Yes, see http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/psycho_santa/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117553/ 11:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, nonsense, and/or possible original research. Satan Claus appears to be someone's idea of a joke. --SunStar Net 10:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
• Cautious Keep I think the article is pretty interesting, and it's obviously not something he made up himself. It doesn't fit the "nonsense" category as it seems to be a theory which is actually in circulation, see the pages he links to. The article definitely needs improvement, but i think it could be quite good. BerlinBabylon 13:31, 24 November 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.