Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thanksgivukkah


 * 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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanksgivukkah

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A neologism that will probably not be discussed past this year. Sources in the article are spotty. Another option is to move the page to Wiktionary, if allowed by their inclusion guidelines. Tek022 &#124; Comments?  03:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Not even close.--Larry (talk) 03:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It took me just a few clicks to find a ton of references: Charleston Daily Mail, ABC News, Daily Mail (London), Huffington Post, Times of Israel, Jewish Journal, Jerusalem Post, and AP. They will be plenty more coverage by the time the holiday arrives. So what if won't be notable next year? In fact, it probably won't be notable again for another 80,000 years. The article can always be deleted later. We write for today. Now, in the present, along that fine line that divides past and future, this holiday is notable. The Viking at Stamford Bridge (talk) 07:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Which parts of WP:EVENT make it notable? Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encyclopedia.  We write articles that have encyclopedic importance, this should not be part of an encyclopedia.  Tek022  &#124; Comments?  18:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting case. It certainly meets wp:GNG.  The assertion in the nomination that refs were spotty in the article is of no moment -- the coverage need merely exist, and need not be in the article.  And the suggestion that coverage does not exist in the real world is belied by the articles devoted wholly to this subject whgich are discoverable both in a google search -- which should be done by a nom per wp:before before making a nomination -- and by those reflected now in the article.  So the only question is whether wp:event is a bar.  I haven't yet decided on my !vote.


 * But to answer your question, the parts of WP:EVENT that suggest that it is notable include the following: a) "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources" (certainly the case here, with international coverage); b) "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group" (again, certainly the case); and c) "Articles about breaking news events...are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete."--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:EVENT. No indication of lasting significance or lasting effect (as even the above keep vote admits), lack of in-depth analysis. It's just a silly news story a few people picked up on, and an attempt by the Gitells to sell some dubious merchandise. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Meets WP:NEO insofar as this page is not being used to increase usage of the term--it is already being used a great deal (googling it gives nearly 2 million results), and has been the subject of a number of articles in reliable sources, including those cited above. It's even been mentioned by Stephen Colbert, if that helps (it probably doesn't).  Jinkinson   talk to me  18:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that the media has picked it up, and will continue to do so, is exactly what provides evidence of notability. The dilemma arising from the fact these two festivals will be coinciding, an event that occurs once in a lifetime, creates is significant from a socio-cultural standpoint. Do I serve turkey or latkes as the main course of our Thanksgivukkah feast? When exactly do we light the candles? At sundown, as Jewish law mandates, or is it acceptable to wait until halftime of whichever football game is on at the time? Is it acceptable to fall into a bloated tryptophan-induced coma before opening the Thanksgivukkah gifts and receiving such long-awaited items as a pair of slacks with a flexible waistband (just in case you grow a bit more next year) from Uncle Irving and Aunt Shirley. This event will be generating Jewish legal issues in halakha that even the late sainted Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, zatzal, would have been unlikely to resolve. Stephen Colbert's imprimatur should be sufficient to firmly establish the truthiness of Thanksgivukkah. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Alansohn, you wrote that tongue-in-cheek, right? There are no halakhic questions about a secular holiday coinciding with a rabbinical one, and there's no halakha to eat latkes, either. Yoninah (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:EVENT. The plethora of sources only shows that it's a slow news day. Yoninah (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? Delete this please.  Coined by a woman from Boston?  Slow news day indeed...  This encyclopedia is teh serious, not the funny pages. -- Y not? 20:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per Yoninah/ --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Thanksgivukkah has received a lot of media attention and so has this article. If nothing else, the article is viewed hundreds of times a day. PrairieKid (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This term now yields 25,900 results on GNews, so I don't think there should be any notability issue at this point. But it seems that some editors still object to the inclusion of humorous material. The Viking at Stamford Bridge (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep this discussion seems to revolve around whether this should be notable, not whether it actually is. I think the topic is silly and it should not be notable. Based on all those little numbers at the end of sentences, there are a wide swath of media reporting on the topic making it notable. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sometimes I think WP really has trouble telling fluff news from real news. This clearly fails WP:EVENT (it's not even really an event, it's a date!) and will be forgotten the next day. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete.  This article is about the fact that two holidays land on the same day by a mere freak of the calendar.  Since one holiday is only celebrated in one country and the other holiday is only celebrated by one religion, we could crack the calendar open and find dozens of such freak occurrences.  For example, in 2014 the Hindu religious holiday of Holi falls on the same day as St. Patrick's Day.  That doesn't make it encyclopaedic for Hindus living in Ireland.  How about that Thanksgiving in Canada falls on the same day as Columbus Day?   The fact that this is getting any traction is that both are celebrated in the United States, which smells a bit of systemic bias.   Water-cooler stories like this are red meat for fluff stories, which is why so many sources can be found.  However, cutesy-wootsy fluff stories about a non-notable event simply because it has a cutesy-wootsy protologism don't automatically make something notable.   In terms of actual guidelines, WP:EVENTCRIT specifically calls items like this out as not notable:  Routine kinds of news events (including [..] stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories" and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.   -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you find, in such instances, such widespread international coverage in diverse sources across three continents (not limited to the U.S, as you suggest)? With many articles devoted entirely to the event -- rather than passing mentions -- as here?  It's that, of course -- not the fact of the convergence -- which confers notability. And which makes it anything but "routine".--Epeefleche (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I said Thanksgiving was a US-only holiday. At no time did I suggest coverage was US only.  Please do not twist my words.   Also, I do not want to fall into the trap of Wikilawyering.  I'm not going to debate words such as "routine" while ignoring the spirit of WP:EVENT.  When *I* read the guidelines, I feel the spirit that behind these guidelines that its overall intent was to exclude items of a transitory, non-impacting nature -- even if it got a lot of fluff coverage at the time.  Now, we can play word games and say "The Israel Times wrote a piece so now its international coverage!" while ignoring the overall spirit here, but I don't want to do that.  Sorry.
 * My overall stance is that the argument that "It has coverage, therefore notable" is actually twisting the actual policy of "If it is notable, it must has coverage". While all things that are notable must be well-covered, there are many things that are well-covered that are not notable and we have a plethora of guidelines (including WP:EVENT) and policies (such as WP:IINFO and WP:NOTNEWS) that wouldn't be needed if the only criteria for inclusion was being well-covered by the media.  For me to say "keep", I need more than mere coverage.  I need to see it pass the spirit of those guidelines and policies, and I simply don't in this case. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 16:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It is the scope of coverage that is key here. And the coverage of this is not US-only, but rather across three continents.  And clearly this is anything but routine -- just the opposite. As far as weighing coverage, we look at the depth of the coverage (are there articles solely about the subject -- though this is not necessary, it can be important, and here we have a great number of such articles), and is it local in scope (here it is international in scope), and are there many RSs covering it (here, a great number).  We try to avoid editor POV substituting for the judgment of the RSs, as to whether it is worthy of substantial RS coverage.  A number of papers outside the US wrote on the subject, not just one.  And the US coverage by the Wall Street Journal, and Huffington Post, and ABC, and CNBC, etc., all show this coverage to be just the opposite of the strictly local coverage the spirit of our guidelines steers us away from.  It strikes me that it overwhelmingly passes wp:GNG.  It is the opposite of "routine."  And wp:oneevent is discussed above, and states inter alia that: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources" -- rather than ignoring the coverage, as you did, it focuses precisely on the coverage.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree for just the reasons I stated above. Unlike you, I shall not repeat myself other than to say that I feel that WP:COMMONSENSE tells me no in this case.  You may call it POV (which I take exception to, btw), but I call it my interpretation of the spirit of WP:EVENT.   If you feel so damn strong about this, feel free to add your own "keep" !vote rather than arguing with other editors, ok?  I'm not changing my !vote.   I said "Delete".  I stand by "Delete".  Move on! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:EVENT and the comments of Epeefleche. The article refers to a singular cultural phenomenon akin to, say, an extremely rare solar eclipse. The relevant question is whether people care about this as much as they care about the solar eclipse, and a simple Google search reveals that they care about it a great deal more. From WP:EVENT: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". Check. Of course none of us can know whether the event will have lasting impact, but the fact that it has received this level of attention a month before it has actually happened gives every indication that it will. Finally, the fact that the title of the article is a neologism, which is the nom's declared rationale for deleting, is incidental and irrelevant to a deletion discussion. Whoever prefers "2013 Hanukkah-Thanksgiving Co-occurrence" or some such name should take it up on the article's talk page. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep — it's obviously a notable phenomenon / event, per the sourcing, and seems likely to remain so (though perhaps not of huge notability) after its passing. The fact that it's a newly coined term is a red herring, the event itself is not something newly discerned. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Another awful WP:NEOLOGISM that has no long-term notability. References in WP:NEWS do not make it a notable topic. You have got to be kidding me if you think a made-up portmanteau for a one-time coincidence is a "singular cultural phenomenon", even if buzzfeed made a list about it. The WP:EVENT has no short- or long-term impact, even if the hyperactive media has mentioned a meaningless coincidence. As Shinmawa pointed out, WP:EVENTCRIT makes it clear that routine water cooler talk is not notable. Reywas92 Talk 10:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Although there have been multiple articles on this, even in the Wall Street Journal, there is no importance to it from a religious or an American Jewish cultural perspective. The two holidays overlap at times, but the only difference here is that Thanksgiving is the first night of Chanukah, and some marketers have jumped all over it. This does not happen again for 70,000 years. All it means is that a lot of kids aren't going to get their presents until the second night or first morning, since they'll be at relatives the first night celebrating Thanksigiving instead, and Dad will be too busy overdosing over L-trytophan and watching football to deal with running home to give the kids their presents.Sposer (talk)


 * Keep Supported by sources. For instance: "Another seller is hawking a plastic dreidel filled with kosher candy corn as a 'Thanksgivukah Special.'" Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is a classic version of WP:Recentism if there ever was one. Another case of editors confusing breadth of coverage with depth if coverage. Just because it appears everywhere for a short time does not mean it is going to have the the staying power for it to become truly notable. The sources that are being cited are not news but human interest fluff pieces that are not intended to be serious, in depth pieces that have significant editorial oversight that would be needed to make this notable beyond the the 24 hour news cycle. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets wp:GNG.  Overwhelmingly. Entire articles devoted to it, with depth of coverage.  From top-level RSs.  In three continents.  Articles in a great number of publications, including the Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, ABC News, MSNBC, New York Daily News, Daily Mail (UK), Maariv (Israel), Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, Charleston Daily Mail, Sun Sentinel, Deseret News, and Tablet Magazine.
 * Furthermore, a reading of wp:EVENT indicates that it is notable under that guideline. As the guideline says: "Events are ... very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources".  Certainly the case here.  Similarly, the guideline states: "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group".  And that is also the case, as it affects a group of millions of Jewish Americans.
 * The only impact is that there were some articles written on it and a few people are taking advantage of a mis-represented event. There have been eight overlaps with Chanukah currently ongoing during Thanksgiving since 1776. So, it is not common, but it is far from unheard of. That it is the first day is meaningless. That it is getting new coverage is cute, but it does not impact either American Jewish culture (outside of a couple people wasting money on Turkey Menorahs), or Thanksgiving itself. It certainly is not encylopedic. Wide coverage does not imply that the event is meaningful. If this was likely to result in a change in the way American Jews celebrate either holiday, there would be some value in keeping the article. But, an encylopedia is not a newspaper and should not have an article for every human interest story that crops up, even if there were many stories posted.Sposer (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * A reading of the policy wp:Neologism, similarly, shows this to be just the sort of neologism that the policy indicates is in fact notable. As it states: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources."
 * Some of the delete !voters based their !votes on non-wp criteria. For example, while admitting to its robust coverage across the globe by top-level RSs, they personally find the subject silly.  But, as editor Revelation put it, "this discussion seems to revolve around whether this should be notable, not whether it actually is." And, as he said, even if we individually find it to be "silly," if it meets wp's notability criteria (which for the above reasons I believe it does), that is what matters.
 * Some !voters also assert that the robust, in-depth, world-wide coverage is due to a "slow news day." A "24-hour cycle."  But all we know is that this coverage has been going on for not one day, but rather for weeks.  And it is crystal balling it to say that it will only continue for another month or two.  And as to the WP:RECENT -- that's just an essay, the opinion of one or more editors, and reading it actually presents support for articles such as this one, while noting that some editors may not like them.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I still disagree with your assessment, but I appreciate that you finally weighed in with your own !vote rather than just chucking grenades from the cheap seats. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 21:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Question - Are we going to be talking about this after the day passes? For it to be more than recentism, there is an requirement of ongoing and continuing importance. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:49, 15 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Whimsical as it may seem, it passes our general notability guidelines. Enjoy your Thanksgivukkah. -- cyclopia speak! 14:58, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I contend that it does not pass the 5th bullet of WP:GNG. While it has sources (no dispute), it fails WP:NOT and WP:IINFO, a good part because it IS whimsical.  Merely having sources is not a guarantee that is is notable, per WP:GNG. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:16, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please take some time to read how IINFO is supposed to apply. There is no violation of policies whatsoever in this topic; your comment amounts to you not liking the article. Whimsical-sounding topics are not less worthy than other topics. -- cyclopia speak! 21:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I am surprised that editors are so busy trying to prove this subject is notable and ignoring the issue of WP:NEOLOGISM, the fact that this term was conceived out of the blue and won't last later than November 28. Basic Wikipedia policy in Manual of Style/Words to watch clearly states: Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Yoninah (talk) 21:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that editors are so busy trying to prove this subject is not notable that actually do not read the very policies they link. From WP:NEOLOGISM: Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term. - This is exactly the case here, it is possible to pull together many facts, plenty of sources about the term or -in this case- concept. -- cyclopia speak!  22:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:DISCRIMINATE is an essay and a highly flawed one at that for many of the reasons stated on that essay's talk page. For one thing, the essay confuses "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection" with "Wikipedia does not contain collections of indiscriminate information" as the essay focuses exclusively on lists.  It goes downhill from there.  I do not accept that essay to be representative of the policy and reject it out of hand.   While it is true that I don't "like" the article per se, that is not why I am against its conclusion.  I would appreciate that you do not state my motivations on my behalf. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't want to understand WP:IINFO: fine. In any case, simply saying WP:IINFO without explaining why this is "indiscriminate" (hint: it is an excellently discriminate topic) or what other policies this article would violate is irrelevant. Point is, the article violates no policy, it is full of sources about the topic, and you can't use WP:IINFO as a jolly card to delete stuff you don't like. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 11:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I asked you politely to stop putting words in my mouth and assuming my motivations. I'm asking again, more strongly, to stop putting words in my mouth.  You do NOT know what I want or don't want.  You do NOT know what I like or don't like.  You are wrong to assume my motivations and I take exception to you asserting them.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 22:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This clearly violates virtually every item listed here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events) in Inclusion Criteria. It will have no enduring historical significance. It has no lasting effect. Although there is diverse coverage, it is human interst coverage and will not be re-analyzed (outside of maybe an article about the 1000s of Turkey Dreidels and Menorahs available for $0.99 since almost nobody bought them). It does however fit perfectly into the non-noteable category of water cooler stories and viral stories. The coverage is not analysis. It just mentions a calendar oddity, that is misreported anyway, since the significance ought to be if this occured on the first night of Chanukah, which it does not. There will be no duration of coverage past Thanksgiving. The only argument I have seen is that there have been alot of articles and as per this: " a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable", that is not enough. This is non-notable and non-encyclopedic in the extreme!Sposer (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In NEVENT, it actually passes WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. That is more than enough in my book. I understand you couldn't care less about the topic, and I don't really care about it too: this is however no reason to make a disservice to our readers by refusing to cover a well sourced, notable topic. That we don't care about something does not mean nobody is allowed to care about it. In this case sources cared a lot about the topic: this is enough for our guidelines, and it is more than enough for me. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 15:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot look at any one guideline alone. The notability criteria clearly explain where the scope, diversity and in depth criteria are meaningless, and this is a perfect example of it. That said, if the community wants to sully Wiki with this waste of computer bytes, that is what Wiki is about.Sposer (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * These criteria are not meaningless at all here. Given that we're not made of paper, we can indeed afford to "waste computer bytes" for things you personally dislike. Let us all remember we're here for the readers, not to satisfy our ego in building a useless cathedral. I don't care about Thanksgivukkah, I find it silly, I am not even American nor Jewish -yet this is a notable topic, it has received coverage by sources, and as such we can and should cover it as well, so that our readers can read it up and make their own mind. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 16:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep High-profile notable term. Clearly satisifies WP:GNG. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Neutral (or Weak Keep). As much as anything else, I wonder what this article will look like in a year—or if anyone will even notice it by then. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not temporary: once notable, forever notable. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 09:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't like it. Zargulon (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2013 (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.