Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coca cola christmas advert


 * 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 Coca-Cola. Kudos to Uncle G for the rewrite.  Sandstein  17:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Coca cola christmas advert

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

Non notable advert with a single reference being listed as a facebook-page. Lacks context to identify exactly "which" advert this article is in relation too (as Coca cola christmas advert are annual events spanning tv channels, globally). Fails WP:NF, (WP:NOTSOAPBOX - for promotion of a facebook page)  Flewis (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite; Coke's Christmas advertisements are a notable cultural phenomenon spanning many years. If nothing else, there's their popularisation and spread of the red and white garb for Father Christmas - though not its invention, a notable urban legend which could also be covered. There's plenty here, and I'm sure there are external resources - newspaper reviews, histories of advertising, histories of Christmas in popular culture - which could be used. Shame the current article is so poor. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article does not focus on Coke adverts in general - rather on a single non-notable Coca cola advertisement. -- Flewis (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we already have such an article, this should redirect to it; if not, this could be the beginning of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not sure why it wasn't put up for speedy.Paste (talk) 11:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Coca-Cola which does mention the urban myth about Santa Claus. That section could definitely include more information about CC's advertising around Christmastime. --Bonadea (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete. Devoid of substance, no subject matter.  A general page, covered elsewhere, containing no notability, verifiability or anything else, pretty much.  Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * None of those are actually true any more. Uncle G (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So I see. I withdraw my opinion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: It looks great to me. I believe several users had immature and malicious intent when they marked this article for deletion, so glad that it has now been so thoroughly improved. 163.1.212.48 (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The "Holidays are coming!" advertisement by the Coca-Cola Company is an advertisement for Coca-Cola that to some people marks the beginning of Christmas." The advertisment [sic] was created by U.S. advertising agency Doner, and have been part of the company's global advertising campaign for many years." Keith Law, a producer and writer of commercials for Belfast CityBeat, was not convinced by Coca-Cola's reintroduction of the advertisement in 2007, saying that "I don't think there's anything Christmassy about HGVs and the commercial is too generic."
 * Merge and redirect to Coca-Cola per Bonadea comment.--Boffob (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Coca-Cola - Notability issues aside, the entire article is copied verbatim from each of the subsequent sources listed respectfully:. Much of the expansion only presents indiscriminate and irrelevant information. For example:
 * This information can easily be incorporated into Coca-Cola -- Flewis (talk) 13:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is definitely an entity in its own right. I am pleased the wider wikipedia community generally has more sense than the users who maliciously marked this page originally (Flewis and Bonadea in particular). Thanks. I am new to wikipedia but it is good to see not everyone lacks integrity. Simon2239 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember to assume good faith - the article as originally written was almost entirely content-free, and its only source was an unreliable one. It's remarkable that it's been repaired even as well as it has; don't think people are 'malicious' or 'immature' just because they have a low opinion of low-quality content. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just thought that it would be much more in the spirit of wikipedia for a note suggesting the article was expanded were to be added, not an instant move to deletion. Simon2239 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See User_talk:Flewis -- Flewis (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect. I do not see anything that establishes the notability of this particular advertisement.  It is possible that the article could be re-written to discuss all of the Christmas advertisements, but as written does not need a stand-alone article.  I would also remind certain users to comment on content and not contributors.Theseeker4 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the Coca Cola Christmas advert is recognised almost indepedently of the Coca Cola Brand. Simply merging it with the rest of the Coca Cola advertising is crude, if anything it should be merged with Christmas. This reference supports this and has already been mentioned: http://www.brandrepublic.com/News/767575/Coca-Cola-revives-holidays-coming-due-popular-demand/ Simon2239 (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At least rename to Coca Cola Christmas advertising. Coca Cola is an American company. "Advert" is not part of the American lexicon. --Smashvilletalk 19:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into another article. Also, stubs almost never have a lead section so that tag should probably be removed. -Drilnoth (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2008 (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.