Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophical Perspective on the Spirit of Christmas

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 03:47, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophical Perspective on the Spirit of Christmas
This is a personal essay and therefore not an appropriate encyclopedia article.--Jiang
 * Delete: DCEdwards1966 04:16, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable original research vanity essay. DreamGuy 04:33, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete humbug well-written POV essay. Gazpacho 04:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikisource if anywhere? - Amgine 06:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, same reasons as DreamGuy. Rje 15:41, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete?,
 * why? because a notably named user (DreamGuy) accuses vanity? a more humble user states "personal essay" finished by "not an appropriate encyclopedia article" yet another with a "humbug" for good measure? is this why this article should be deleted? well let us hear what Webster says about an encyclopedic article:


 * "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
 * Encyclopedia En*cy`clo*pe"di*a, Encyclopaedia
 * En*cy`clo*pae"di*a, n. NL., fr. Gr. ?, for ? ?, instruction
 * in the circle of arts and sciences: cf. F. encyclop'edie.
 * See Cyclopedia, and Encyclical. Formerly written
 * encyclop[ae]dy and encyclopedy.
 * The circle of arts and sciences; a comprehensive summary of
 * knowledge, or of a branch of knowledge; esp., a work in which
 * the various branches of science or art are discussed
 * separately, and usually in alphabetical order; a cyclopedia.


 * now, outside of the fact that this article is filed under "Philosophy" which is either art, science or both depending on your viewpoint --- this vote was opened by stating this article appears to be an essay...and I ask what essay is not at least art? further I wonder what author cannot be accused of vanity for simply believing that upon writing their ideas and or dreams on medium someone might actually want to read what they have written -- quite vain I'm sure.


 * humbug is right. I should hope more for a rebuttal of the ideas in this article via written perspective than a blatant deletion of a completely unique niche subject and article in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


 * so delete it lest you feel compelled in a fit of weakness to add your philosophical view regarding the spirit of christmas...because obviously that would be vain and no one else is doing it...     - Gabriel Kent 19:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * See What wikipedia articles are not nos. 8 and 9. --Jiang 18:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * See What wikipedia articles are not nos. 8 and 9. --Jiang 18:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's a place for this, Gabriel, it's just not here. Try Wikinfo maybe. Andrewa 20:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete for being original research/essay. Tuf-Kat 22:24, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * "Humbug" was a joking reference to A Christmas Carol, Gabriel. Sorry if it didn't sound that way. I like the text, but it's not an encyclopedia article. Gazpacho
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Move to the user's user page if they want to keep it. David Johnson [ T|C ] 01:15, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, non NPOV. Megan1967 01:28, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Not that it's bad, but it doesn't belong here. (also, fixed formatting for above two votes) --TexasDex 02:00, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, sorry, original research. -Ld | talk 05:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, obviously. Josh Cherry 00:48, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, personal essay/original research. Jayjg |  (Talk)  04:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.