Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yenta claus

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 delete, due to many new accounts asking for a keep, and the experience and reason shown by the deletion !voters. —Xyrael / 12:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yenta claus

non-notable content/advertising ArmadilloFromHell 05:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

*delete Apparent hoax. Book cited doesn't exist, at least as far as web is concerned. Antonrojo 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Conditional keep I support keeping this article if at least one source that discusses the details of the myth is added otherwise there is no way to tell if artistic license was taken. This should be available since we can read about oral histories of societies that have had little contact with outside societies I'd expect at least some reference would be available. If unreferenced information were removed, I doubt that enough information would remain to justify an article. Antonrojo 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Article apparently not hoax (see below). At least, book will need a {{fact}} tag Antonrojo 15:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Hoax, fantasy or original research. Should have been a speedy delete to begin with --ArmadilloFromHell 17:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Keep Not a hoax. Article was edited numerous times and all objections were addressed. Web sources were added to the article and linked. Not a lot of info on the web but there are sites which are unrelated to each other and in diverse areas referencing the Yenta Claus character that appear to confirm it. There is the emergence of Jewish Holiday Mythical Characters and one of them is Yenta Claus. The new info includes a play written by a Pace University Professor where Yenta Claus is Santa's wife! http://webpage.pace.edu/newmorning/archive/nov2100/party.htm People who voted to delet may reconsider after they reread the new and expanded article.--Bhires 16:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you have against Jewish Holiday traditions? I keep adding everything I know about Yenta Claus and related characters even though they have Wikipedia entries of their own that ignore her. I will post the Yenta Claus "book" online for you and everyone else to read as I didn't know notable meant the necessity of materials being on the internet. I am probably wrong here, but I thought the reason Wikipedia invited new material was because the mission was to get info useful to readers on the net and that Wikipedia was paperless, with millions of entries and thus open to niche topics. Wait until December, Yenta Claus, Bubbe and Harry et. al. will be all over the net, blogs and relevant cultural sites as well as the off line world in mostly urban areas and I bet Israel too. Last year Blooms book, out of print at the time was fetching over $1000 on Amazon and I know it for a fact because I couldn't afford to get my hands on a copy. Now if Hanukkah Harry gets a stub entry and Chrismukkah get a full status entry and so does Santa Claus, why pick on Yenta Claus for exclusion? I made it a stub and asked for help in dressing up the article as well as expanding it. This is my first attempt at not only a Wikipedia article, but writing an online article altogether. Cut me a little slack and be constructive rather than summarily dismissing the subject and my attempts to fill an online void. P.S. Isn't Santa Claus really a hoax or fantasy perpetuated upon children for every ones enjoyment and delight? Be nice to Yenta Claus and she will be nice to you too! :-) I thought you would be delighted to see this and was taken back at the blatant attempt to censor it. Well, maybe you will reconsider, after all you really didn't give it more than a moment to 2 as you set it for deletion minutes after it went up yesterday and after the first revision spent less time to sent it to the deletion tribunal. --68.41.86.146 19:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC) PS isnt almost everything around the holidays, including Santa as we know it compliments of Coka Cola ads of the 1930-70s, comercial. It is impossible not to link to comercial sites when writing about anything to do with giving toys or the way children get them around Christmas, Hanukkah and Chrismukkah.

  • Delete, fails WP:V. For future reference, ranting never helps. Sourcing and citing the article, however, might. --Kinu t/c 19:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and, you know, this would make a good blog post, but is not an encyclopedia entry. --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


The standards you cite ought to result in the deletion of many many many articles I have read here. Not everything of note and worthy of inclusion in a site like Wikipedia is vintage or antique so as to have been published in sources required for undergraduate term papers. I have written my fair share of those and have since experienced enough real life post graduate school to escape from grade school mentality. No rant but really folks, real life is a very good source, ie published news articles, published speeches made by leaders and authorities in the field, actual books, commercial site offering the evidence of the existence of the topic. So are you saying you object to anything that does not smell of moth balls and was already predigested by academic types so one merely regurgitates second and third or more hand takes on dry toast material? Don't need Wikipedia if that is all it is, but you have Hanukkah Harry? And so much totally weird stuff? You propose to censor what is offered to the public, an inside scoop, the real thing with cites of real people doing and writing and saying what amounts to a cultural phenomena and you vote to delete? Apparently because the citations and links do not lead you to stuff that sits that has been around so long it is already dusted over on times shelves? Well, I may pull it off totally befre you delete it and write about how you young folk barely out of school with little real life under your belt think you qualify as experts in censorship.--68.41.86.146 22:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK rather than summarily vote to delete something as wonderful as yenta Claus, and since you all apparently have the time to sit in judgement over so much information that undoubtedly is tossed up, I ask for the sake of discussion that you, for the moment only, assume that Yenta Claus is a worthy subject, critique my work from that vantage. In other words, tell me how to win. Not to worry, even if you tell, if I can't deliver than I'll at least understand. I think I get the drift here but being that we have a generation gap and I can, thought rarely will admit to remembering, fondly remembering, rotary phones and party lines. Ha! Now those are subjects dusty enough to be included? Yes? So the future will know of it? And I remember the first TV and the first orbiting satellite Sputnik. There write about the Space Race wars and haw us kids watched the night sky to see a Soviet glowing ball of steel float over the night sky several times every clear night. OK, tell me what you consider the type of sources I need and I may just be able to float a few your way and then maybe not but at least you will have "communicated" and perhaps I'll write about a few patents, a religion based upon faith in life and how a trial lawyer save tens of thousands of lives with one lawsuit and did it all pro bono. Really, do give Yenta Claus the chance anything that cool deserves by just giving up the details your summary dismissals hint but do not reveal to those who were born before the Internet.--68.41.86.146 23:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI [1] and do forgive me for sharing this: "Aaron Swartz analyzed who was mostly responsible for adding the gist to a typical Wikipedia article, and his findings show that – as opposed to what Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales himself assumes – it’s mostly outsiders (people doing only occasional edits, often unregistered). The Wikipedians, those people with deep inside knowledge into how Wikipedia works (like policy debates or advanced syntax), do more edits by number, but those edits are also often just structural or syntactical changes to content “non-Wikipedians” provided.

Frankly, all of this makes perfect sense (expert knowledge on such a wide array of topics must be widely distributed among different people, too, and won’t be contained within a group of say 500 Wikipedians), but it also shows that Wikipedia will only remain healthy if it keeps trusting outsiders." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhires (talk • contribs) .

  • delete There are no Ghits (out of 32 unique hits for "Yenta claus") outside the company, its products, and greeting cards, and a private individual using tripod.com, so it appears to be all original research. The owners probably would have not been able to register such a company name had it been a generic term. However, if Yenta claus brings me something for Chrismukka, I might just reconsider ;-). The article appears to be a product placement, written in such a way as to subtly introduce an apparently unknown company and its products, and so violates WP:NOT a soapbox. Wiki does indeed have a conservative bias, but is not censored, so whether the editors collectively "like" or "dislike" the article would never be an issue. Unlike blogs which where people can write or rant about whatever trendy thing they like or dislike, wiki editors need to follow fundamental rules on verifiability, and unfortunately Blogs and chatroom fora are not considered reliable per WP:V. As a result, Wiki may often miss grass-roots phenomena, which blogs and community sites pick up. Also, there are subject areas, cultures, countries which have a low web presence/penetration, wiki editors would tend to err on the side of caution when no sources (on-line or otherwise) are cited. Often, the deletion debate results in articles found which may sway the deletion panel. The simple fact is that a well sourced and referenced article, documenting a well-known phenomenon, has a much better chance of being retained than one which does not do one or the other. Ohconfucius 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
vote change to Neutral. Appears to be a genuinely emerging phenomenon gathering momentum, but still lacking in reliable sources. Ohconfucius 04:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User:ArmadilloFromHell added the "prod" template to the article Yenta claus, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but we don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and User:ArmadilloFromHell explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Yenta claus. If you remove the "dated prod" template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 00:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank or remove content from Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yenta claus, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --ArmadilloFromHell 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ohconfucius None of the 32 Ghits about greeting cards are mine and you missed the sites on jokes/humor and Comedians playing the Yenta Claus character for Elk club and the like parties and the reference to Yenta Claus on the Chrismukah site. Ta ta self serving dunces. I did creat a pillow doll exhibited on one site named Yenta Claus, but alas it is not a retail site and you can not buy one online or in any brick and motar store anywhere. Selectively reporting a single engine key word search and then with bias slanting the report of it, thus telling a bold lie, is a very dishonest and unethical tactic and particularly offensive when used for a purpose a nefarious as censorship.--Bhires 02:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Oh you also missed the Rabi's published online four (4) myears ago, Hanukkah sermon on Chrismukkah and Yenta Claus! There are other sites as well, referencing her and BTW Yenta Claus is the name of a Corporation as well. And, since you probably are not Jewish have little to no interest in.

comment Concerning the other sites you mentioned, these were personal websites and excluded per WP:V and WP:OR. If you are implying that the Armadillo recruited me, you will have one hell of a job to prove it. BTW, I only notice one person ranting here. The only thing missing is expletives ;-) Ohconfucius 03:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


It isn't my job to prove anything to u as "the proof is in the pudding."


So the Elks Club, Some Synagoges publishing a Rabi's sermon online and American Greetings, Yahoo and Chrismukahh are all personal site. Cool. So is Wiki than!

Hey look what I found![2] I guess it was considered valuable to someone even though it was up a fraction of an hour, first version up less than an hour yesterday, when it was cut and pasted and shared! —The preceding unsigned comments were added by Bhires (talk • contribs) .

comment There are loads of sites which pick up content directly from wiki, as it is free from copyright. In an earlier post, you asked how your article could be turned into something keepable, and I did offer some advice. But it would appear that you are making your own interpretation of the rules and not actually appear prepared to listen to anybody. I will not give you any more grief. My vote remains unchanged. Ohconfucius 03:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK you all want Yenta Claus deleted, so which one of you reposted it!! Why so you can click your delet buttons in unison upon the The Verdict as in the Tale of Alice in Wonderland? (remember the trial and the mouse's tale?)LOL Enjoy your exercise and let sanity not vanity win the day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bhires (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC) in response to the reversion of his blanking of the article.


I read this on a Wiki user site: "This is what the inherent failure of wikipedia is. It's that there's a small set of content generators, a massive amount of wonks and twiddlers, and then a heaping amount of procedural whackjobs. And the mass of triddlers and procedural whackjobs means that the content generators stop being so and have to become content defenders. Woe be that your take on things is off from the majority. Even if you can prove something, you're now in the situation that anybody can change it. And while that's all great in a happy-go-lucky flower shower sort of way, it's when you realize that the people who are going to change it could have absolutely no experience with the subject whatsoever, then you see where we are." --Bhires 04:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

and as [[3]] continues, and please do forgive me for sharing. I am tired and feel a bit worn out by what I thought would be a positive and productive effort to what is clearly becoming 'not fun at all' and otherwise something I wouldn't ever do again, unless, possibly unless I was paid a significant amount for, turned into efforts to salvage my little but notable piece from an attack of the Langoliers as in the 1990 Steven King novel Four Past Midnight;

"If you've ever worked in a large company, one where not everyone's name is known by everyone else, you've bumped into these people, who don't know the thing the company makes very well, don't keep on top of new ideas beyond buzzwords, yet wield the kind of power where they can stop and start innovation and positive growth because they simply feel like it. It's pretty heartbreaking stuff and I hope a bunch of you never have to deal with it.

But thanks to Wikipedia, you can experience this on a daily basis! College students with too much free time deciding your subject matter is not worth reporting. Bizzare insight from strange lands telling you they didn't think your paragraph was relevant. And ever the bizzare need for a Neutral Point of View. Neutral Point of View is a doctrine about how Wikipedia articles should be written. Like wikipedia itself, it is a great idea in theory. In application, of course, it turns into yet another hammer for wonks and whackjobs to beat each other and innocent bystanders.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhires (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is a relatively new creation, but it already quite beset with the same problems that inhabit any self-styled intellectual collaboration. People make little empires, have their agendas, push through ideas and themes they want, and disregard and delete things they do not. The main difference between this and other similar academic environments is the pure speed at which stuff can happen; you can literately have 30-40 little editing nibbles on a page within a single day. If people are feeling frisky, it can take place in a few hours. This means that you get all the politics and turf war of Ivory Tower Academia without the mitigating barrier of time to cool down or consider. That is, you get a nice big mess." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhires (talk • contribs)

Delete and comment Fails WP:NEO and WP:V. Changed to conditional keep - see belowBhires, you're not helping yourself here by making personal attacks. I've removed them, and I suggest you spend your energy discussing the merits of this article, instead of throwing insults on the project and its contributors. Baseball,Baby! balls•strikes 05:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete – Bhires, if your article was backed up with the appropriate citations and references, I doubt anyone would worry about it too much. It's a shame that you think so little of Wikipedia, but I hope that you'll spend some more time understanding that the policies we have are there for a reason. As I see it right now, the article is a pretty good candidate for deletion. — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 06:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


I think less and less of it every time I login. It may be that some think so little of Wiki that they feel qualified to delete another’s work and project their own motivational issues upon others when ascribing opinions on intentions and efforts.

To have Baseball Baby, who ever that is, remove my discussion because of an apparent discomfort when criticism is too accurate citing a no personal attacks policy as censorship justification is one example of why I object to this exercise. It is a poorly organized effort. Well, you should know, my comments were not intended as personal though expressed with feelings of a real person, me. I usually avoid this kind of silliness, that is subjecting myself and work to critiques by people who don't have a clue about it nor its cultural context and may, possibly may, harbor resentments towards others, i.e. prejudices.

Yes it really bothers me to have you all nominate something I care about. I’d rather have never offered it than to have it shot down. It is doubly an offense that I don’t feel some here are truly qualified as gatekeepers. It would be different if someone here tried to be objective and contributed to an effort here rather than issue summary deletion attacks. Nevertheless, I agree to remove the entire article, something I have agreed to before but was actually prevented from doing.

BTW, for those who keep referring to me as a he and those who are impolite, not that it really matters, but I am a highly educated, successful, accomplished dual professional and a woman. Many of my accomplishments could easily rate for separate entries. Note: I am not interested in more notoriety than I have already received in life. I had my moments and do not need any more. See, I already have had two Wall Street Journal articles discussing me and my work, numerous TV news appearances, on the cover of magazines, hard copy not online, and featured in various news papers, print copy and so on and so forth.

Note: I have read up on many of the contributions, citations in articles of minor note and personal pages of most here. I am happy some are ambitious and seek success and fame. I am impressed that some graduated college, and some have jobs or once had jobs and that some are heads of their own publishing companies, i.e. Boggs and online rant sites. A few even wrote articles about their experiences. However, it does appear to me that perhaps some of you though adults are fairly young, very close to the age of my son. Thus I should give you all a bit of slack, something not offered to contributers of content apparently, and tolerate the youthful approaches.

I would like to simply withdraw my article.

I have one other recommendation for the future, it would be wise to learn to be less judgmental about what the "world" may find of value. Clearly that Wiki lets people write articles about their High Schools, college records, amongst articles about companies that once employed them, and the like, all of which underscores Wiki's acceptance biases.

So, let's end this now. I elect to redact my article.--Bhires 15:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Seeing as how the original author is now in favor of deletion, given that she is the only editor (aside from an IP who is assumed to be the same editor from the comments herein), can this be speedy G7ed? --Kinu t/c 15:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Eh, might as well let the AfD play out, for the sake of future G4ability. --Kinu t/c 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm reversing my vote above if that makes a difference...my main reason for citing WP:V was the lack of citations to the book. Whether the unverified book citation belongs in the article or not, legitimate sources do mention Yenta claus so I think it passes the validity test: [4] [5] [6]. Antonrojo 15:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: IMHO, the use by a few random greeting cards (even though they are on American Greetings, etc.) and a random crafts website is of tenuous reliability, at best. Other editors might agree with you though. --Kinu t/c 16:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. So long as it's up, I'll revise as I can to address the objections. The "book" about Yenta Claus is now available for reading online at [7] Scroll down read on, a short read as it was meant for children. Whether or not you still vote to delete my article, I do hope you enjoy it and that you take away a bit of holiday good cheer.--Bhires 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: this will only show up in Internet Explorer Antonrojo 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to see what is wrong.--Bhires 20:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


I got it open with both Mozilla and Explorer. What browser are you using? Also try refreshing the page as sometimes your browser stores an older version in the cache' and the old page will appear.--Bhires 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Firefox Beta2. Apparently the problem is due to the 'beta' and not the 'firefox'.Antonrojo 16:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep I was asked to reconsider, so I took another look at the article, the changes Bhires has made to the article since the Afd opened, and his sources. Based on the changes, I think I can see where Bhires is going with this, and I'm willing to give him a chance to more fully develop the article. He's provided sources, expanded it a bit, and demonstrated that the term isn't a hoax, so why not? I agree with Riana dzasta that it needs a serious copyedit and wikification, but that's not hard. My reasoning is that as Christmas and Hanukkah approach, there may be more references to Yenta Claus and more editors on this article, so let's wait until after the holidays to see what happens. It can always be renominated if it doesn't develop or expand, or if the term isn't in use this year. I think this may be the wrong time of year to judge notability as a neologism – a better method would be to wait until the time of year when the term is more likely to appear online and other places. My condition? No more calling people "whackjobbers" and the like, okay? :-) BaseballBaby 01:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Deal and thanks for reconsidering :-)) P.S. I'll put in a good word for you with Yenta Claus. You never know!--Bhires 02:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment about to embark on a wild copyediting spree, have moved page to Yenta Claus; hope no one minds. Agree with BaseballBaby (for some reason your nickname makes me laugh, by the way), conditional keep provided that we get more references, etc, and that Bhires continues to play nicely :) (I understand it would be very hard to sign up and have your first article nominated for deletion, so I won't judge you too harshly) — riana_dzasta wreak havoc|damage report 07:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: While the concept may exist, I still fail to see how a play of dubious notability (written/performed for a holiday party and staged once?), even along with the other references provided, meets WP:RS. Mind you, I have no prejudice toward recreation if this concept does gain some traction this holiday season or whatnot, but until then, WP:NOT a crystal ball as to whether notability will be asserted in the future. I do appreciate the efforts to source the article, however, and best of luck to the author in her future contributions. --Kinu t/c 13:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Suggestion everybody take five, and don't get your knickers in a twist. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RE: Suggestion Point taken and I have adjusted my knickers. I was unfamiliar with the workings of the site at the time I began to write. It all started as I was researching the subject, found Hanukkah Harry and no Yenta Claus on Wiki and rather spontaneously, began writing for Wiki to fill what I preceived as an online void. Over the past few days, I think I have spent as much time learning the Wiki process and trying to make amends, as the time I spent trying to improve the contribution to address the concerns raised. I am truly a "newbie" here and hope my learning curve is short.  :-)--Bhires 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article needs more work, but seems to be genuine enough for me. Jdclevenger 02:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nelogism, of dubious notability and verifiablity. Mukadderat 18:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kinu - no evidence that the concept has "gained traction" yet. It seems that a few scattered creators have invented the punny name independently. FreplySpang 02:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment If she is indeed popping up on multiple independent sites that all say she is a Jewish Hanukkah character, why negate her? The article includes all known versions from a NPOV. I have read many wiki articles on obscure characters that are not deleted who have either no external referances or are merely claimed to exist in ancient manuscripts written on untranslated Arabic or simply referanced to a library, containing thousands of books, in a distant nonenglish speaking foreign country. At least we know Yenta Claus exists in multiple online communities. I have even read emails/blogs have written years ago where they write that they asked her for presents for Hanukkah. I think some here just might be a tiny bit too hasty in their dismissal of her. At least she should be allowed time up during the Holiday since she is a seasonal character and we are out of season now. Time will tell who was correct, but if she is deleted now, she may not reappear and Wiki will be out an objective stub and a valuable article. Do you really think come March when the referances fade off line in the off season someone will say, hey lets write about her for Wiki? Please reconsider.--Bhires 04:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC) Changed to "comment"--Bhires 05:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment You said "Time will tell who was correct, but if she is deleted now, she may not reappear..." That's actually a key part of the Wikipedia philosophy. If an article is deleted and no other author comes along with the same idea, that means that "time has told" that it was appropriate to delete it. Also, if several individuals have independently come up with the name "Yenta Claus," it does not mean that there is any shared cultural concept that they are all referring to. Uncle G, a respected longtime contributor, has written an excellent essay that you may find helpful for explaining some of these issues. FreplySpang 16:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for the info linking Uncle G and I did read it and understand where you are coming from on this. In Yenta's favor, he did say things that would tend, at least somewhat support, keeping the Article as well. I see how people could easily vote either way. I just want a chance to better it. I am new here and am sorry to have put it up early and in such unfinished form. I saw many with less and thought it was going to be a colaboration of sorts not a rush to judgement. I appreciate many helpers and supporters and believe we will get morer contributers soon as the season is approaching and perhaps people from other groups, like Chrismukkah and such helping too. I did more research on both Christmas and Hanukkah characters ond observances and the internet discussions pretty much end in early Janurary and start up around late october to mid November or so. I do see her as a emerging and Notable character even if she is of interest to a smaller group and during a specific time of year. Uncle G seems to support these topics and cautions against subjectivity in deleting them because of this. I am tired and need to do something else for a while so my comments should be taken in that context and in both the words and in the spirit of an excellent essay. I just don't feel it is fair to dismisss the topic if it isn't of interest off season, like now I guess. I'll work more on her and Mrs. Claus later today or in the morning. I did find a very nice referance to the origin of Mrs. Claus and added a bit to that very short and neglected article. I am beginning to adopt her as an interest of mine and I'll actively work to improve that entry too. Later and nicey nice til I am back to work on this.--Bhires 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Peta 09:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not covered by reliable sources in any way. Less than 50 unique Google hits? I'm surprised there's even one argument for keeping this nonsense. Wickethewok 04:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off Topic, Sightly that is

[8] This is way too fun not share. The subject os the short freebie is "Yes there is a Jewish Santa Claus Virginia!" I have to actually work today and will not get back on the project until later this evening so be gentile with Yenta Claus in my absence, pretty please.--Bhires 15:28, 13 September 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.