Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ho ho ho

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Postdlf 06:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ho ho ho[edit]

We read: The way that Santa Claus laughs. "Ho, ho, ho! Merry Christmas!" Yeah, right. It's also the way that Clarence Carter laughs and the start of the US-gummint-baiting chant "Ho, ho, Ho Chi Minh!" Big deal it isn't. Feeble and non-encyclopedic. No no no. -- Hoary 04:06, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Santa Claus or else delete. And Hoary, I liked the edit summary ("Ho ho ho, no no no"). Meelar (talk) 04:08, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
    • Santa Claus doesn't even mention the phrase yet. There is no Merry Christmas! Bah... Keep and expand per Klonimus below, or request creation of Merry Christmas and redirect there. Samaritan 16:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yes, I checked and the only reference to Merry in the very extensive Christmas is a throwaway nod to "merrymaking." These are among the most iconic expressions in the English-speaking world and their history and use well deserves to be discussed. Samaritan 17:01, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, Happy Christmas, and, more extensively, Happy Holidays, are on the rise, since Happy Holidays has no religious or cultural connotations so could be applied to Hanaka or whatnot. So if we add Merry Christmas, we may one day soon need to add Happy Holidays too... Master Thief Garrett 00:13, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • So what if we have to add an article? It's not like we'll run out of paper. R Calvete 01:05, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
            • Is that a Keep Vote? Klonimus 06:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Nothing, I'm just saying there's lots of expressions we don't cover that, by this logic, should also be worthy of addition here. Master Thief Garrett 01:21, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. Quale 04:15, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not encyclopedic. While a redirect sounds plausible, I can't imagine that many people would actually search for "ho ho ho". Master Thief Garrett 04:29, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial, not encyclopaedic. Megan1967 04:45, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable expression. Klonimus 06:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Santa Claus. Martg76 18:25, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extreme delete, what Megan said. RickK 21:16, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Samaritan, else delete but do not redirect. Kappa 23:26, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable expression R Calvete 01:05, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for expansion. ElBenevolente 02:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then make into a redirect to Santa Claus. — JIP | Talk 04:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although several people have claimed that this is a "notable expression" or that the article otherwise deserves preservation, so far none has taken the trouble to expand it beyond The way that Santa Claus laughs. "Ho, ho, ho! Merry Christmas!" So what are you waiting for, chaps? I have an open mind, and I'm willing to change from "Delete" to "Keep" if the article is rewritten to be worthwhile -- just as I did in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/In Defence of Marxism. -- Ho ho Hoary 07:21, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
    • I second that. Come on people, open up our narrow little minds! Show us this is worthy of our deletist leanings! (note the slight sarcasm) Master Thief Garrett 07:29, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bah-humbug. Leithp 11:44, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is now a perfect example of why a delete is almost never justified.--64.254.131.77 15:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should qualify that: a delete is almost never justified for articles that are not clearly vandalism or vanity pages.--64.254.131.77 15:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks to Smerdis. Noisy | Talk 12:47, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • Questions: Pardon me for party pooping, but something here strikes me as dodgy. How is "ha ha" any more "nasal" than "ho ho"? And (cough) is the content of the revised and hugely improved article sourced, or is it original thought (intriguing original thought, but what might in the VfD context be termed "original research")? -- Hoary 13:11, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
  • keep please its expanded Yuckfoo 00:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it. -- BDAbramson thimk 06:15, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. Harmless enough, has potential. -- taviso 10:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, fine. Keep. Bah. DS 15:51, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep new version by Snidely of Tlön.  :^P - Lucky 6.9 18:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Barfooz 23:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Klonimus. —Markaci 2005-05-6 T 03:06 Z
  • Delete. Incorporate the info into the Santa Clause page, if it's needed. Jacob1207 01:31, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The rewrite turned it into a good enough article. --cesarb 05:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ho_ho_ho&oldid=1140187873"