Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spring Holiday

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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spring Holiday

This article is based on Christian beliefs and deserves no place at Wikipedia. Easter is a secular holiday anyway. --Ravingatheist 10:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christmas (2). —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:28Z
and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christian holidays--Arktos talk 10:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep why is an article on Christian beliefs not deserving a place on Wikipedia. Last I heard Wikipedia was not censored. No grounds given for deletion of a referenced article.--Arktos talk 10:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, or merge to Secularization of Christian holidays. Important topic. You can argue whether Easter is a secular holiday or not in the article and also in Easter. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:23Z
  • Reluctant keep. I still think the article needs serious revision, but I will admit that having some article on this topic is good. I think it goes into far too much detail on the supposed controversy, but a brief article discussing what "Spring Holiday" often means in this context is useful. Powers T 14:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per all of the above. I am unnerved by the fact that the nominator, named Ravingatheist no less, objects to the article on the grounds that "this article is based on Christian beliefs." Wikipedia is not censored, and, for what it's worth, Wikipedia is not the Bill of Rights, separating church and state. Religious articles are perfectly fine as long as they stand up to the pillars. SliceNYC 22:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep not a legitmate reason to delete. --Edgelord 22:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Nomination amounts to a claim that the article lacks a NPOV. However, the article lacks such a tag and there has been no discussion about the issue recently. There was on June 30 a claim that the title was inherently lacing in a NPOV, but not one that convices me, given that the title is the proper noun for what the article is about. Currently lacking a NPOV would not be a reason for deletion, only irredeemable bias would be, and that is not an issue with this article. GRBerry 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I hope we don't start calling it the Spring Bunny - but an encyclopedia isn't here to make judgement calls! - Themepark
  • Keep - as Powers says above the extensive material on the naming controversy may belong elsewhere, but we still need an article. -- Beardo 23:39, 28 August 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.