Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christmas Adam

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. postdlf (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Adam[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the references are WP:RS. All are user-contribution sites like wikipedia. Seems to a Neologism Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, this article has no redeeming features. Andrew (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Considering all the social-networking media involved, it may become notable, but it is TOOSOON. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 20:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Article dedicated to a neologism (and a marginally misogynist one at that) with no reliable sources. When I saw this pop up at WP:DYK, I first thought it was an early April Fool's submission. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:28, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above JayJay^{Talk to me} 21:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources have been added and now number three newspaper articles, two books, and numerous blogs and social media outlets. Frankly, Christmas Adam is celebrated more than HumanLight and maybe Festivus, other December 23 unofficial holidays that Wikipedia have long had articles on. Wenjanglau (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ^{[citation needed]} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- WP:NEO. Perhaps we need to delete some of the other articles mentioned by Wenjanglau too. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I love that Wikipedia has a broader encyclopedic view than Brittanica or World Book. Articles on relatively obscure (albeit real) celebrations like Festivus and Christmas Adam have articles, and I think that is very helpful. These articles answer questions for those who hear the phrases and aren't sure what they mean, and unlike an Urban Dictionary the Wikipedia article gives one a sense of the history and how widespread the holiday celebration is. Very helpful. Please keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.210.46 (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSUSEFUL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete Amazingly, GBooks comes up with one hit in 1867, but it doesn't readily pull up the two books on holidays which seem to be the main secondary and potentially reliable sources. These doesn't seem to be a single thing; it seems to be a clever/dumb thing that gets reinvented over and over. So it's really a bit of WP:OR to tie them all together in a single article. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above, and Facepalm. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.