Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thanksmas


 * 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 speedy delete – Gurch 05:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanksmas


Obvious hoax. WP:NFT. A few Google hits, but it appears to also be a slang term some people used on their blogs as a Thanksgiving/Christmas combination. No organized holiday. Deprodded by anon, without explanation. Grrr. eaolson 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's either a hoax or something celebrated by about four people, in which case it's nn. Doesn't meet the CSD, but should definitely be deleted.  --Hyperbole 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Hyperbole. --KFP (talk | contribs) 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete! Let me count the ways: 1. Unverified. 2. Apparent original research. 3. Clearly nn. 4. Smells strongly of joke/hoax. --Ginkgo 100 talk 01:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above, and once we get Yourewelcomemas we get to do it all over again.B.Wind 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Ginkgo100. Accurizer 03:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as CSD G1 (patent nonsense) and G3 (joke article vandalism per WP:VANDAL). The db-nonsense tag was pulled despite the article containing such deathless chunks of prose as The renown Thanksmas symbol is the Magical Turducken that grants the wishes and gives gifts to everybody it encounters. "Magical turducken" in quotes is a Googlewhack (Actually, I think it's cheating to use quotes to get a Googlewhack, but you get the idea) Tubezone 03:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and watch out for Halloweaster and St. Presidentine's Day. Wavy G 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete seems like patent nonsense to me.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 04:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Patent nonsense is for gibberish. Things that don't actually parse as coherent English. This is coherent, if a poor article. eaolson 05:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment. This is a tangent but I admit that the policy on patent nonsense drove me up the wall until the new deletion procedures were introduced. An article that consisted entirely of "Tomatoes are devious items.  They haunt my dreams" would get tagged as patent nonsense, and someone would rebut and say "it parses in English! it's not nonsense!"  However, read the second part of the patent nonsense criteria - does this not fit under that rubric?--Dmz5 05:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * PN? I would think that referred to things that have valid syntax, but don't make sense. "My hovercraft is full of iridescent homogeneity," for example. eaolson 05:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, and we could argue that point, but you know how some editors can be. I swear to you I tagged things like that and suggested speedy deletion and they were invariably untagged by some Nanny who would say that it didn't REALLY count as patent nonsense because only a9853qlkhjfas is patenet nonsense.--Dmz5 05:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Delete--Dmz5 05:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per above. So tagged. MER-C 05:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete what more discussion needs to happen? Horrible, horrible, horrible article. Xtsubarublazin 05:45, 30 November 2006 (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.