Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas light sculpture


 * 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   merge to Christmas lights .  MBisanz  talk 06:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Christmas light sculpture

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research, unreferenced, author was recently warned about the same issues when this very material was removed from Light sculpture. No indication that these displays are considered sculpture. If the author wants to build up Christmas decorations from a redirect, that would be great.  Litho  derm  06:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. –  Ty  07:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Move to Christmas light display and redirect. "Sculpture" is a minimally used term in this context, equating to a neologism, or at most a minor marketing term with a mere 90 google hits. However, as it's unreferenced at the moment, I have no objection to it being deleted, certainly with the article name and orientation as it stands.  Ty  07:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Christmas lights per Pastor Theo.  Ty  12:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Christmas lights. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. "Not sculpture" is elitist.  They are obviously and inherently wireform sculpture, and as proven by the examples at the bottom, can be extremely artistic and beautiful.  If you don't want it in an arts category, fine, that's exactly why I didn't put it in one.  But there is no reason to come into the Christmas categories and try to eliminate it.  Most of this is common knowledge, at least in the U.S., where they are so common in nearly every town and store.  The rest is examples, which anyone is welcome to change to other, more diverse examples (although the Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge examples are very well-known regionally, including surrounding states from which they attract significant winter tourism due in large part to the lights).  Also, the Christmas lights article is long enough, and this is a distinct concept.    –radiojon (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Christmas lights..Modernist (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Christmas lights seems sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Christmas lights looks the best solution, I really don't see it as a "sculpture" and stand alone article. Sorry, but it is a light display for Christmas - Christmas lights. Arty pants,  Babble 16:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Christmas lights.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not a sculpture, which implies it has pretensions of being art. It is more correctly called a Christmas "display," because they never aspire to be art. Are they submitted to art shows, art galleries, art museums? If not merged to Christmas lights I would suggest a new title, Christmas display, because "sculpture" is misleading and probably a misnomer. Also, note the sort of objects that are found at Light sculpture. They all obviously aspire to be thought of as art, primarily. Bus stop (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with you in principle, however my !vote to redirect is simply for the term "Christmas light sculpture" to be a redirect on the very unlikely chance that someone may use that term looking for an article on Christmas decorations. All a bit silly in the end. My mother was quite talented when setting up the Christmas lights, decorating the tree, and so on. She would have found it amusing to have been called an artist.  freshacconci  talk talk  20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Christmas lights per discussion. Otherwise rename - Public Christmas light display or something. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2009 (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.