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 of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sankta lusse[edit]

"Sankta lusse" has zero google hits ... the article is barely coherent ... see also my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual warfare BigDT 03:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be a misspelling of Santa Lusse or Santa Lucia, but the article is too incoherent to tell what this is. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep as the event described (though poorly so) seems to exist and has no present mention. It appears to be an informal day of significance in Sweden. Needs clean-up and probably a new page title. But its hanging by a thread. SM247 04:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to St. Lucia Day. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to St. Lucia Day; that's where the event this article describes is discussed. --Metropolitan90 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As nominator, I have no objection to a speedy redirect and close BigDT 05:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the Swedish name is Sankta Lucia. Tearlach 09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Santa Lucia day is a very famous holiday in Sweden, but this article reads like a joke or a POV fork. And "Sankta Lusse" is a joke name. JIP | Talk 09:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV fork, what a joke. --Terence Ong 14:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, don't redirect; this is a non-existent name for an existing festivity. The article has more errors, and it is better to start from scratch from a reliable source. An old purely Swedish name is Lussenatt, while Norwegian has Lussinatt. --Lambiam^Talk 21:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The following comment was made by User:Guillen at the top of the page. It has been moved down in order to keep the flow of the AFD:
  • "Sankta Lusse appears in Google ! you no even know as searches for something in Google,and wants to comment in wikipedia?. Sankta Lusse is right name used by Canadians and Americans in North Carolina and Connecticut from Swedish/Danish Origins. Lussenat is Lusse night,there are no Norwegian name for it. Norwegians celebrates Kris Kringle instead,it see the commenter below no even know the issue discussed here. It is another example from abusive use from wikipedia by catholics,you are angry because an article proves Sicilian Saint Lucy is no same Lusse from Sweden Denmark Christmass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillen (talk • contribs)
    • This is the first time I've ever been accused of being an abusive Catholic. (Hint: I'm Southern Baptist and, more importantly, a born again Christian.) The problem with this article is NOT theology. The problems are threefold: (1) if you go to http://www.google.com and type in "Sankta Lusse", you get nothing whatsoever. (2) There is already an article called St. Lucia Day that discusses the holiday in Sweeden. This topic belongs in that article, not a new article. (3) The article is very difficult to understand. This has nothing to do with Catholic vs Protestant - nothing whatsoever. BigDT 23:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not a Catholic, but I do find the article in question to be completely nonsensical. This is no conspiracy. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 23:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your threefold problems: Sankta Lusse exists,is no Catholic Saint,and last but no least it appears in Google. 1)Reads again my former letter. And learn to uses google. 2)Saint Lucy Day is a day devoted to a catholic saint. It hadn`t any relatuion to Sankata Lusse. Give me more time to write proofs,sources,it. By the way I works in a corporation,I`m no a lazy teenager writing articles in favor from pornography and catholicism as you. 3)Is very difficult to understand,because it is for inteligent people only?. Give me more time and I writes here enough sources and proofs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillen (talk • contribs)
        • Rather than being insulting, would it be possible for you to link to your google results? When I go here - http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2003-37,GGLD:en&q=%22Sankta+Lusse%22 - I get nothing. Also, please remember the no personal attacks policy. Calling us lazy teenagers, saying your articles are written only for the "inteligent" (sic), and claiming that we are writing articles in favor of pornography are not acceptable behaviors. BigDT 16:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • What are you talking about? The impetus is on the person adding content to the Wikipedia to prove its verifiability, not the other way around. You've done nothing to prove that it's verifiable, and have done little more than accuse people here of being biased/lazy/pornography-loving Catholics. It's only slightly amusing. And no, Google does not find anything on "Sankta lusse". It does find the two words seperated, but that's fairly useless. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 22:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh you are lazy teenagers,raised by too much indulgents "parents"-I imagine incest play a big role here-.

The problem here: Wikipedia was created thinking ONLY in mature adult and serious people,no crybabies who think to search in Google is to make a profound research!!!!. I DON`T WANT to discuss with you,on NOTHING. I`m interested only in scholars,academicians,Professors and similar people.

Go to masturbate. And last but no least,you are no any Southern Baptist,you are only a guy without a daywork. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guillen (talk • contribs)

• Despite all of your blabbering, you've failed to provide a single source, or any form of verifiability for this article. As I said, according to the official policy on verifiability, the editor who is adding information must provide a reputable source, or the contribution can be deleted freely. Your poorly constructed insults have not accomplished that. If you were a scholar, surely you would understand how crucial it is to have reliable information in an encyclopedia such as this? -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked at a sample of the edits of this user. My goodness. He/she leaves behind a trail of wreckage and misery, like a 4-year old on steroids (or worse) who has gotten hold of his father's SUV keys. --Lambiam^Talk 02:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, in view of WP:V, and per Lambiam and JIP, on whom I repose (in the archaic sense of the word, and with great confidence) apropos, inter al., of Scandinavian issues. Joe 00:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by Lambiam is defamtory and must to be deleted.

  You're right, I shouldn't have said that. I apologize to all 4-year olds. --Lambiam^Talk 02:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It may have been a bit much, but considering the user's contributions I don't think it is completely unwarranted. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, NOT merge or redirect. Per ... most of the above, really; I couldn't say it better. Colonel Tom 12:28, 7 June 2006 (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.