Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of Christmas on the environment


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Effects of Christmas on the environment

 * — (View AfD)

Complaints have been made that this is inherently POV, or that there is no need to single out a single day of the year for environmental coverage. Beland 23:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, per above. Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an essay repository. --Dennisthe2 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ...erm, yeah, that's me. --Dennisthe2 23:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain how this article is an essay. It links to several sources.  When an article points to sources, one has to do more than only provide a bare assertion in order to argue that it violates the No original research policy.  How is the article not supported by the sources that it links to?  What efforts have you made to determine whether other sources exist?  Uncle G 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT WP:NPOV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esurnir (talk • contribs).
 * How, given the several sources linked to the article, is this original thought? Uncle G 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The only actual assertion of non-neutrality is Talk:Effects of Christmas on the environment, which does not assert that the article is inherently non-neutral, but only addresses a single sentence within the article. That's just a content dispute, which is a matter of cleanup, not deletion.  Please explain how this article is inherently non-neutral.  What, exactly, is the debate that the article inherently takes sides in? Uncle G 04:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I agree with Uncle G, there is no POV as far as I can see, and it is not an essay in that it has no thesis. Also, the assertion that Christmas just a "single day of the year" is absurd. However, the article as is resembles more like notes from a brainstorming session on an esoteric topic than an encyclopedic article about a topic in public debate, which is why I cannot say Keep (for now, at least). hateless 22:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Why not create an article "effects of weekends on the environment". This article fails to assert it's importance. I really don't believe one single day can have that much effect on the environment as to deserve an article. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I say Very Strong Keep, I do however have some comments. I believe it should be remamed to something along the lines of "Effects of the winter holiday season on the environment" (that was it accounts for dozens of concurrent holidays. When I see stuff like:    I know it's not some article meant to push a pov, but an actual issue. When consumers travel more, spend more, cook more, leave christmas lights up, throw away paper, and cut down millions of trees just to toss them in a refuse pile to burn, it is an issue--not just "one day". Dark jedi requiem 20:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and move info elsewhere Its an interesting topic, but per WP:NPOV I don't think it should a have seperate article. Relevant information can be moved in Christmas, Christmas tree, and German Christmas traditions. <3 Clamster 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would have the same effect. If I want information on the subject, I don't want to have to look through Christmas, Christmas tree, Wrapping paper, Christmas lights, Winter holiday season, and so forth. If one needs the information, there's no need to have to find it scattered about several articles. Dark jedi requiem 00:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This could be a nice section in Winter holiday season. <3 Clamster 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Expand it to include all major holidays and we have a workable Wikipedia article. Holidays DO have an extra impact on the enviroment (much as they affect the economy and transportation). Its a start concentrating on X-mas, but gives undue weight to that particular day (a lot of the transportation issues apply even more to Thanksgiving). --Eqdoktor 06:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Clamster. GassyGuy 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research, no reliable published sources. Sandstein 11:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete OR essay. Dragomiloff 00:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an original synthesis of disparite information. Eluchil404 09:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. appears to have laudible aims, but in additon to appearing to be unsourced original research, there's no specificity to Christmas, or indeed the December holiday season. It is a function of consumerism, and equally applies to birthdays, moon festivals, mother's days, etc., and as such, ther article appears to violate WP:NOT. However, I could see a valid article being built around Effects of economic consumption on the environment, which would be more easily sourced. Alternatively, redirect to consumerism or Waste management Ohconfucius 22:35, 6 January 2007 (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.