Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas on the International Space Station


 * 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   keep. This decision does not rule out a proper merge discussion on the talk page. J04n(talk page) 11:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Christmas on the International Space Station

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionable notability and limited scope. Concerns raised during August 2012 PROD have still not been addressed. While I prefer deletion, I would not object to merging with religion in space.  W.  D.   Graham  20:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Religion in space -- or possibly a Religion on the ISS article, if there's enough information to spin out from the parents. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, recommend expansion with examples from Mir and other spaceflights. Fotaun (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Fotaun, how can we expand an article about Christmas on the ISS with information from Mir?-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Question Any reason this is up for deletion as opposed to merging with the main ISS article?  Sædon talk 20:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It is so trivial that putting anything more than a couple of words into the ISS article would be giving it undue weight compared to the rest of that vast topic. -- W.  D.   Graham  21:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Even so, that parts of the article could be merged I think means this should be a merge discussion first and a deletion discussion second, though I am inclined to agree it is a trivial subject. Sædon talk 21:30, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * keep "Delete because it's too small" is not a good reason for deletion. Notability is already met by sources.
 * Expansion to a broader Christmas in space would be a better target for growth than losing it within a myriad minor sections under ISS. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge with International space station or Religion in space, unless potential for a substantial expansion can be demonstrated. Sædon talk 21:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into International space station. And why is there a page titled Religion in space?  Why not start a page for every single item and practice in space.  My vote is for haircuts in space.  I think there should be an AFD for that too!MartialArtsLEO (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - celebration not merely religious (though I suppose I could live with a merge to either ISS or religion in space, just not my preference), and adequate sources and notability. The "it's not big enough" argument doesn't fly with me; usually the bandwidth taken in these AfD discussions would be better spent expanding the article in question should there be adequate sources out there to keep it - which there allear to be.   Montanabw (talk) 21:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Both Montanabw and Andy Dingly are making straw man arguments. Nobody has suggested that the article should be deleted because of its current size; the question is whether there is enough potential scope beyond simple trivia to expand it into a viable article. In addition, I still question the necessity of an article for this topic in terms of notability and encyclopaedic value; the concept of the article is more sensationalistic than encyclopaedic, and we don't need articles for every little thing that happens on the ISS, simply because it happens on the ISS. -- W.  D.   Graham  22:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A straw man possibly, but it's one that you introduced in the nomination, "Questionable notability and limited scope." Notability is sourced, narrow scope is irrelevant. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, or merge to Christmas in Space. Notable, unusual topic.--Dmol (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep 3 independent RS'es means GNG is met, and no other argument for deletion has been advanced. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect Utterly, utterly dumb topic. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mkdw talk 00:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Consensus at time of relist was legitimately split between 'merge' and 'keep' on guideline/policy based rationales. Relisting per Jclemens request. I would encourage the avoidance of "it's notable", "I don't like it", and WP:HEY by adding information from other topics. Mkdw talk 00:29, 20 May 2013 (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.