Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christmas (2)


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 08:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Secularization of Christmas

 * This is religious propaganda. Conspiracy theories. --Ravingatheist 10:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The previous debate is at Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christmas. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:14Z 
 * See also Articles for deletion/Spring Holiday. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:25Z 
 * and also Articles for deletion/Secularization of Christian holidays--Arktos talk 10:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep why is an article on Christian beliefs not deserving a place on Wikipedia. Last I heard Wikipedia was not censored.  No grounds given for deletion of a referenced article.  Note related nomination at Articles for deletion/Spring Holiday--Arktos talk 10:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, or merge to secularization of Christian holidays along with Spring Holiday. What part of this article do you consider to be religious propaganda, and if so why not correct the article? —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-25 10:27Z 
 * Keep. They're conspiracy theories, but they're notable conspiracy theories.  The article needs significant revision, of course, as "Censorship" is a different topic and this article has far too little detail on the actual process of secularization.  Powers T 14:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Powers. It was the religion-related cause celebre last winter and received signifcant media coverage. SliceNYC 22:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Nomination amounts to a claim that the article does not have a NPOV.  The article does have a NPOV tag on it at present.  If we look at Talk:Secularization of Christmas, Talk:Secularization of Christmas, the former is more properly a citation/reference issue and the latter is to my eyes a legitimate decision based on the time horizon.  Even if there were current major POV issues, having a POV issue is not a reason for deletion unless the article is irredeemably biased, which this is not.  There are plenty of sources out there folks, just very little attention is paid outside the holiday season.  I see no other eason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GRBerry (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. This is an important cultural topic. Rohirok 16:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is non neutral, but I did hear of the term in American and British media last X'mas --Ageo020 19:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per GRBerry. Zelse81 09:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it's actually an issue in society. It's not a POV article, but rather a reality.  It's not saying that the trend is good or bad, but rather that it's happened.  This page records an actual cultural event - just like the Women's liberation movement, or any other shifts in views.  - Themepark


 * 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.