Deletion of Thanksgivukkah

Comment: High-profile notable term. Clearly satisifies 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails . No indication of lasting significance or lasting effect (as even the above keep vote admits), lack of in-depth analysis. It's just a silly news story a few people picked up on, and an attempt by the Gitells to sell some dubious merchandise
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: Meets  insofar as this page is not being used to increase usage of the term--it is already being used a great deal (googling it gives nearly 2 million results), and has been the subject of a number of articles in reliable sources, including those cited above. It's even been mentioned by Stephen Colbert, if that helps (it probably doesn't). http://www.businessinsider.com/stephen-colbert-talks-hanukkah-falling-on-same-day-as-thanksgiving-2013-10
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Whimsical as it may seem, it |passes our general notability guidelines. Enjoy your Thanksgivukkah
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This article is about the fact that two holidays land on the same day by a mere freak of the calendar.  Since one holiday is only celebrated in one country and the other holiday is only celebrated by one religion, we could crack the calendar open and find dozens of such freak occurrences.  For example, in 2014 the Hindu religious holiday of Holi falls on the same day as St. Patrick's Day.  That doesn't make it encyclopaedic for Hinduism in Ireland|Hindus living in Ireland.  How about that Thanksgiving (Canada)|Thanksgiving in Canada falls on the same day as Columbus Day?   The fact that this is getting any traction is that both are celebrated in the United States, which smells a bit of |systemic bias.   Water-cooler stories like this are red meat for fluff stories, which is why so many sources can be found.  However, cutesy-wootsy fluff stories about a non-notable event simply because it has a cutesy-wootsy protologism don't automatically |make something notable.   In terms of actual guidelines,  specifically calls items like this out as not notable:  ''Routine kinds of news events (including .. stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories" and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually '''not notable''' unless something further gives them additional enduring significance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:WORLDVIEW||WP:IINFO||WP:EVENTCRIT)

Comment: per  and . The plethora of sources only shows that it's a slow news day
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEOLOGISM||WP:EVENT)

Comment: This is a classic version of ecentism if there ever was one. Another case of editors confusing breadth of coverage with depth if coverage. Just because it appears everywhere for a short time does not mean it is going to have the the staying power for it to become truly notable. The sources that are being cited are not news but human interest fluff pieces that are not intended to be serious, in depth pieces that have significant editorial oversight that would be needed to make this ote|notable beyond the the 24 hour news cycle
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R||WP:N)

Comment: per  and the comments of Epeefleche. The article refers to a singular cultural phenomenon akin to, say, an extremely rare solar eclipse. The relevant question is whether people care about this as much as they care about the solar eclipse, and a simple Google search reveals that they care about it a great deal more. From : "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". Check. Of course none of us can know whether the event will have lasting impact, but the fact that it has received this level of attention a month before it has actually happened gives every indication that it will. Finally, the fact that the title of the article is a neologism, which is the nom's declared rationale for deleting, is incidental and irrelevant to a deletion discussion. Whoever prefers "2013 Hanukkah-Thanksgiving Co-occurrence" or some such name should take it up on the article's talk page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:EVENT)

Comment: I |don't like it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)