Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrismahanukwanzakah (3rd nomination)


 * 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. the consensus is the soucing is thin and many opf te keep arguments are falling outside the GNG to find evidence of notability and are therefore not policy based. Spartaz Humbug! 05:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Chrismahanukwanzakah
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This is a neologism created for an ad campaign whose lack of worth becomes more evident with each passing year. This has survived 2 previous AFD, the first mostly on the grounds of "I hear the ad on tv all the time", and the second on "well it won an award", which the word didn't, the commercial did, and even then, it tied for third place in a very specific subcategory - Telecom ads. It also is lacking in notability sources. Delete as non notable. CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 20:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep the phrase has fast become well-known worldwide and there is also a lot of coverage on the interent from reliable sources that could be included in the article. Definitley notable, no doubt about that.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not about the phrase. The article is about the Commercial.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Essentially per AtlaticDeep. It clearly survived the first two nominations for a good reason.--Lionmadness (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This is notable and is still is notable. With just a little research, I've uncovered plenty of recent references to this label. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Then add them too the article or list them here, please.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 17:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: Voter is known sockpuppet on matters directly related to this topic, see [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elielilamasabachthani/Archive]. FWIW. --CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 06:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Was clearly a one-time idea from a Virgin Mobile commercial that has little notability into the present, aside from occasional media use for absurdity effect. &mdash; CIS (talk | stalk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it has become one of the more common phrases of the time. And that's just without the commercial notability.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with AlanticDeep. Besides, look at the last two Afd nominations. Better yet, look at the reason the most recent one closed as keep:


 * The result was Keep due to notability not being temporary. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The result was Keep due to notability not being temporary. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It does NOT have only "temporary" notability. It has ongoing notability. --Lionmadness (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 16:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- —  æk Talk  03:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete One-shot novelty marketing slogan with no lasting encyclopedic value. Warrah (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is thin on this one, but it's there. And, as the previous AFDs note, Notability is not temporary. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism. I dispute the fact that it's known "worldwide", as I'd never heard of it until I came across this discussion.  Wouldn't object a merge with a "List of Virgin Mobile USA advertising campaigns" article though.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC).
 * Delete. WP:NEO. Known world wide? If you say so. But that's not the criteria for a neo, is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete ONE reference in an outside source - an ABC News item from 2004 - is not enough to constitute notability. Nobody seems to have noticed it since then. --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Notability is not temporary. Gosox5555 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet the GNG. RMHED (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability is not temporary. Nor, from time to time, rational. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep/Rewrite - Just throwing in my two cents to help reach some sort of consensus. My thoughts on notability match those of Hullaballoo above. Notability is not temporary and isn't always rational. But CastAStone way up above noted that the article is about the commercial when the term is what has notability. The article should be re-written to focus more on the term with just passing mention of the commercial. Doomsdayer520  (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I never heard of it, I don't remember it, I can't believe it was ever notable, but it apparently is . Mandsford (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge and redirect to Virgin Mobile USA at most. Notability is not temporary, true, but that Ad nauseam argument overlooks that this was not notable to begin with and the reasons given in the prior AfDs were not reasons at all.  Tied for third place for an Effie, and got some slow news day, Christmas season fluff pieces, probably written from a press release?  Incidentally, the number of news hits goes down further when +virgin is added to exclude articles where writers independently invented the rather obvious compound word. Humbug! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Initially I thought weak keep, but the article reads like an advert for Virgin. Would need a lot of re-writing to keep I think, the one reference is a concern. DRosin (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mansfold - further evidence that if I hate some pop-culture meme, then it is probably notable. Bah humbug! Bearian (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Soft redirect to Wiktionary. The article is about an advertising campaign that does not meet the standards required for notability (3rd place in a specific sub-category of one awards ceremony does not cut the mustard). As for the word itself, Wikipedia is not a dictionary but it seems to merit an entry at Wiktionary (I'm just about to create Chrismahanukwanzakah). Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The news sources suggested by Mandsford prove that the word is in use, but don't unequivocally show notability of the "event", as opposed to the word. One of those news pieces suggests a possible link with Christmas controversy; if there are more like this, a merge may be appropriate. Otherwise, a soft redirect to Wiktionary, as advocated by Thryduulf, may be better. Given that this has been discussed three times, I fear that deletion will just lead to re-creation. Cnilep (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * strong keep easily meets WP:N.  is a good example, but there are plenty of articles from major news sources purely on this topic.  Should there be?  Probably not.  But there you are. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That article would be a good source for an article about the concept of festivals combining several religion's holidays that take place in December, but that is not the subject of this article. The subject of this article is primarily about the advertising campaign and the ABC News article you link to only mentions it twice, both times in passing. We can use this article to verify that (a) the campaign existed and (b) it was designed to sell Virgin Mobile phones - which is not enough to base an article on. Others have suggested the wp article be refocused to be about the word, but this source is completely silent on that so would not be of any use for verification purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean it meets the notability criteria at all. Either your saying it meets it for being a word, which it doesn't, or it does for being a holiday, which it doesn't - its an ad jingle that caused a MINOR stir in 2005 and has since been abandoned. Flash in the pan does not meet the General notability guideines.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 18:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment there are at least 3 keeps here that argue that it shouldn't be here but it meets WP:N so we should keep it. I remind the closing admin that WP:N is a guideline that was built by consensus with the further consensus that it can be overridden by consensus when it makes sense, see WP:IAR. If you think this shouldn't meet the notability guidelines but want to keep it, your missing the entire point of Wikipedia's consensus system and descriptive - not prescriptive - guidelines.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete in the absence of any multiple, non-trivial coverage of this ad campaign.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge into Chrismukkah, and replace with a soft redirect to Chrismahanukwanzakah. While I came into this debate expecting the article to meet WP:GNG easily, I'm admittedly having a difficult time finding sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify a separate article. However, I do favor the idea of preserving some of the information in the Chrismukkah article, and creating a soft redirect to Wiktionary. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - It's an ad campaign! Come on, one mention after all this discussion above, in an ABC online post is not enough to make it notable, not to mention it's p art of a freaking ad campaign. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It became notable not only from the commercial but also the fact that it's used in conversation around the holidays. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2010 (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.