Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Sinterklaas and Santa Claus


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 21:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of Sinterklaas and Santa Claus

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No assertion that the topic, the comparison of the two, is notable. No reliable sources used, seemingly making it original research as well. Could potentially open the door for any number of similar "Comparison" articles as well, which would probably have the same problems. If anyone raises concerns about the dubious timing of this nomination, I ain't afraid of no ghosts. No particular objections to merging some relevant content elsewhere, but I'm not sure which page to merge what to. Ebenezer Scrooge (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ebenezer Scrooge (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Ebenezer Scrooge (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * From a gut feeling, Keep. I know there have been sources comparing the two. The thing is finding those sources so I can demonstrate the notability of the comparison. I'll probably revisit this discussion later this week. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just dumping some links I still have to investigate the merits of, though it's becoming clear that at least the relation between christmas and sinterklaas has been source of research:
 * http://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Q-kO4ehiX1UC&oi=fnd&pg=PA6&dq=verschillen+tussen+sinterklaas+en+de+kerstman&ots=mvvaDdDKbt&sig=6Ocr5T9eviKC1XeBE1HARRFMHK4#v=onepage&q=kerstman&f=false
 * http://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gyBeHYkyqigC&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&dq=verschillen+tussen+%22sinterklaas+en+de+kerstman%22&ots=a5iCb1-Z-O&sig=XHJ6ATcj6kyhtnbc5N5_k3arPRA#v=onepage&q=kerstman&f=false Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Investigation of the second link, especialy around page 135, makes my keep resounding. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, see the talk page--Narayan (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:INTERESTING is not generally considered to be a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Glass  Cobra  17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I completely agree that they should be compared and it's interesting. However this is not the right way to do it in an encylopedia. Mention each person's article in the other so that readers can read both and do the comparing on their own. This will give them something to do while waiting for Christmas morning. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * p.s. There are many versions of "Father Christmas." Even in the United States, for example, there are variations. There could be thousands of articles if we compare each one to each other one. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This comparison, IMO is different, in that this comparison is seriously researched (see my above links, which are unfortunately in Dutch). If the other comparisons have equivalent sources, they too should be kept. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as someone's essay. Possibly some material could be put in Santa Claus if it's not already there. Mangoe (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete our function is not to make an active comparison, we take a passive role in demonstrating comparisons. We may report objectively on the comparison but doing the comparison ourselves is original research. I appreciate the sources Martijn has found, but I'm still hung up over the issue of a "compare and contrast" type article. The comparison between the two can be justly treated at their respective articles and can be done without having an essay article.  Them From  Space  22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can certainly appreciate that sentiment, and would much rather see a "relation between Sinterklaas and Santa Claus" article, as it would be much more appropriate to an encyclopedia. For that to happen the entire article should be revamped. I believe however there is too much too say to put it in duplicate in the Santa Clause and Sinterklaas articles. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete The WP:BLP concerns raised by the article are obvious, considering the time of year, and I think that the nomination does put people in a dilemma over whether they will or will not be on the list on Christmas Eve.  Ultimately, though, one can compare and contrast  anything with anything in an essay.  I think that in an abridged form, a paragraph on competitors to Santa would be appropriate in his article, and some of this can be incorporated into the article about the  Sinterklaas myth.  Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP concerns? Sorry Virginia, but Santa Claus isn't real.  Them  From  Space  19:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whaattt??? But the editor of the New York Sun said...Mandsford (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - An article on the development of these various charactes from Saint Nicholas might be reasonable. This article is not, however, that. Simply comparing details, without any indication as to why those details in particular need to be compared or what significance there is to them, is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * keep. I agree the current version is weakly sourced and more in essay style than article, but as Martijn Hoekstra states: there are sources. In response to some opponents: Sinterklaas and Santa Claus are very similar (it is likely Santa Claus partially evolved from the Dutch Sinterklaas tradition) but at the same time very different. That being the same and different makes a comparison (or relation) article relevant in my opinion. In response to the comment WP:BLP above; really, naming these characters living persons is original research in itself, and may tend towards censorship of things we dont want our kids to know. To the latter - too bad, a kid old enough to find this on Wikipedia should be adult enough to realise the neither Santa nor Sint is a living person. Arnoutf (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The WP:BLP reference, and ThemFromSpace's straight man response, were both made in jest, of course. But it does bring up an observation about Wikipedia's policies.  Consider this: If we were to go strictly under Wikipedia's rules concerning citation to reliable and verifiable sources, it would be difficult to find a published source that specifically states "Santa Claus is not real" (in that nobody wants to be the bad guy who tells that to a child); on the other hand, a Google search of news and books would turn up plenty of sources (including the famous editorial in the New York Sun) to support the opposite.  Even worse, if we the typical Wikipedian believed in Santa Claus, suggestions to the contrary would be rejected as original research (based on the deduction that everyone reaches in childhood upon noticing the incredible similarity between the handwriting of one's mother and "Santa").  January's Visa bill is kind of a reminder that almost every adult is expected to be Santa Claus this time of year.  Mandsford (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an essay full of original research.  If someone wants to re-write the "comparison" later on down the road using proper sources they are free to do so.  This version, however, cannot be kept.  JBsupreme (talk) 06:42, 3 December 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.