Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Christmas2

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 speedy keep, because the previous nomination was earlier today. Please don't do that.--Sean|Black 01:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] War on Christmas

I know it was nominated a month ago yesterday, but it's fallen apart even worse since then, and since the war on christmas implies, that there is, somewhere, an active war being faught against christmas, I find it odd, that not one single source can be found that shows the existance of this "war" -- 205.188.116.72 (talk^contribs) 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. It was speedily kept earlier today, not last month. Sheesh. Flyboy Will 00:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep. As per the last AfD's final decision. -Scm83x 00:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep - I disagree entirely with this article's tone but that should be fixed through editing, not deletion. Thanks to various windbags on Fox News this term is, unfortunately, notable. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Why is this page listed in the log for Dec 19th? Flyboy Will 01:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment hold on a sec fixed, Dec 25^th -- 205.188.116.72 (talk^contribs) 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - This is absurd. The article makes it clear in the very first sentence that we're not claiming that a "war on Christmas" is actually taking place, simply that it is alleged to be happening. This article is being worked on heavily right now. Rather than wantonly re-AfDing it, a good-faith editor should try to help that process by making constructive suggestions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• comment Isn't it more absurd to have an article about something that all editors involved admit doesn't come remotely close to existing? -- 205.188.116.72 (talk^contribs) 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - first of all, it's false that all editors involved agree with that. Read the talk page archive. Secondly, no. We have articles on many non-existent things that nevertheless have some cultural currency. Look at the list of examples in Moral panic, such as Poisoned candy and spermatorrhea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  question Why do we have articles on non-existant things?--—the preceding signed comment is by User:205.188.116.72 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

  Answer - because things can exist as issues, topics of discussion, controversies, conspiracy theories, moral panics, etc, and can be talked about enough to become notable, without existing in the most literal, physical sense. Why have an article on Zeus? Why have an article on Bigfoot? Why have an article on luminiferous aether? I think the answers to those three are pretty obvious. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please the entire category Category:Moral panics for a full list of all sorts of things that have articles in this similar vein. Also, my personal favorite poster-child example for AfDs of this type: Endor Holocaust. -Scm83x 01:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Reply, It exists. And I'm an Editor too!!! Chooserr

• Speedy Keep, Already been voted on. Chooserr 01:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. I agree with GTBacchus and Cyde Weys. Edit the article into better shape, not eliminate it altogether. — Diamantina 01:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, [1] Notable topic, fix.--Tznkai 01:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and block user. -- JJay 01:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Few hours won't change opinions 68.63.88.28 01:16, 26 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.