Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hallmark holiday

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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. I've been advised not to do this, but the addition of references by User:Alansohn with the help of User:Uncle G justifies this article's existence beyond a reasonable doubt. Yechiel Man 06:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hallmark holiday[edit]

Article cannot ever be more than a dicdef and maybe a highly subjective list of holidays that would probably just be OR. In fact, that's all it's been since the article's creation. Colindownes 06:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the concept is subjective does not make it undocumentable. A dicdef would likely not include an examination of which holidays are considered HH and why. -- Akb4 21:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was encyclopedic previously, but one or more editors have stripped it of the bulk of its content, including sourced details, references, and entries linked to other holiday articles that mention "Hallmark holiday." I think that the main problem with the article was that while the term is used in two different ways--both to (gently) disparage a holiday that appears to have been created for commercial purposes and to (pehaps jocularly) decry the commercialization of traditional holidays--the intro was written as if only the first meaning was intended (and not gently). This gave the impression that the term was being applied to holidays such as Christmas or Easter in the same way that it was to Boss' Day or Sweetest Day.--Hjal 07:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has never, in its entire history, included references. It has been tagged for lacking references since October 2006. As far as I can determine, I am the only editor to have added any citations at all to the article. Those citations were not sources for the current or prior article content, but further reading and potential sources for cleanup. Uncle G 11:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I had remembered the References section and forgotten that there was nothing there but the template. However, the holidays listed did have at least some references in their own articles.--Hjal 04:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does need some expansion, but this article can be more than just a dic def - it can discuss what holidays are considered "Hallmark" and can incorporate sources on these. There are sources on invented holidays (such as the sources given in "Further Reading"). I have been meaning to add back the list of Hallmark holidays with citations, I just haven't done the research yet. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added citations for material that could be potentially used for cleanup back in August 2006. Other sources exist (including one, ISBN 0805847790, that carefully explains that Mother's Day (United States) is not a Hallmark holiday). Yes, the list of holidays was wrong. That's what happens when editors don't use sources. But deletion of the article is not the cure for that. Nor is deletion the cure for "no-one has fixed this since the article's creation". The cure for that is editors taking the cited sources, and the many others that can be found on this subject, and actually cleaning the article up themselves. AFD is not cleanup. {{sofixit}} applies. Uncle G 11:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every article is always and forever a work in progress. This is a highly notable concept, and the sources cited now by Uncle G are more than adequate to establish that fact. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are hundreds of references to the term, which does NOT mean a holiday created by Hallmark, but more accurately a generic term for a seemingly manufactured synthetic holiday. {http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&tab=wn&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22hallmark+holiday%22 A Google News Archive] search pulled up 834 references to "Hallmark Holiday", and a few have already been added, including for both Mothers' and Fathers' Day. Alansohn 17:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noteworthy concept Rackabello 22:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with above that Deletion != Cleanup. -- Akb4 21:04, 9 June 2007 (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.