Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ceremonial pole


 * 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 no consensus. To delete, at least. Whether to convert to a list article, as proposed, might need further discussion.  Sandstein  10:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Ceremonial pole

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

See talk page for RfC. Majority agree this is WP:OR. If no one wants to scale it back to a short list of links to related to the concept, it seems the closest thing we have to consensus is to just delete the thing.

As there is no consensus about what this should even include as a list, and even that would be OR, deletion seems the best option. This doesn't belong on the 'pedia. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 21:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - propose turning page into a redirect to Festivus. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 21:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've listed in the Disambiguations delsort as turning this into a disambiguation page is one of the options raised at that Talk page Rfc, mentioned by the nominator. So if the Disambiguations people thing that's a great or terrible idea, or somewhere in between, here's a chance to weigh in. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no source that links these different practices. Maybe a disambiguation page, which would be better than redirect to Festivus. There are many ceremonial poles and Festivus is not widely known outside the U.S. and outside of Seinfeld fans.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Disambig or redirect, a redirect to Festivus doesn't make sense, since this is hardly the only generic "ceremonial pole" out there. A Template:R to section to Ceremonial South Pole  would make more sense as a proper name, if a redirect is preferred.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 14:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I for one thought the "festivus" redirect idea was just a joke? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Only partially joking. ;) It's been a strange history with this article. Turning it into a disambig would work, too. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 20:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep not all ceremonial poles are Festivus or the South Pole ple, and this article documents them. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 13:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the fact that combining these all in one article is WP:OR? Since the summer there has been a call for *any* WP:RS sources that discuss commonalities among all (or any) of the objects included here, and zero have been forthcoming. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 20:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think it's WP:OR. The group of "ceremonial poles" can be analytically inferred from the fact that these are poles that are used in ceremonies, and differentiated practices are well documented in RS. It isn't more OR than it is to list Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish and Sikh temples in the article Temple. Or to list wine, beer, milk and soda in the article Drink. It would be absolutely mindless to go hunt for sources that say that Hindu and Jewish temples are instances of the same concept of 'temple'. One will find comparisons here and there ('Hindu temples are like Sikh temples in terms of x but not in terms of y') but one vainly looks for authors trying to prove their foundation: 'The following are instances of temples: Hindu temples, Sikh temples, Jewish temples, Mormon temples...' This is a problem with top level articles, such as this one. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 10:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not what came out of the RfC. With all due respect, did you read the RfC, page history, and rest of the talk page? - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 20:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Noting that the RfC's consensus, that "the primary focus should be 1.Ceremonial use of large poles mounted in the ground", doesn't seem helpful here.  Sandstein  11:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and convert to a set index. "Ceremonial pole" can refer to a number of different things in many religious and secular activities which, other than being a pole, have basically nothing in common. Why not make this an index of the related topics? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * make into set index. Clearly there are no sources which discuss the "generic" ceremonial pole concept. (If I am mistaken, then handle it per Broad-concept articles guideline). - üser:Altenmann >t 22:21, 24 December 2015 (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.