Talk:Parental Alienation Awareness Day

Notability Tag
In my view, this article is clearly notable. The article shows that Parental Alienation Awareness Day is recognized internationally. The article includes citations from reliable sources. I suggest that the notability tag be removed. Michael H 34 (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

This is a good start, but it looks like a bit more explaining might be helpful. To establish whether a subject is notable enough for an article we need to show that the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." WP:GNG
 * Thanks Tiwian, for adding the names of the mayors etc. Unfortunately, the proclamations remain primary sources.  I realize that they are not produced by PA advocates themselves, so I can see why you would think they are secondary sources, but they are still original (primary) documents which are not considered in establishing notability. I am sure you understand that lots of "days" get declared by towns around the world; we only need an article if this fact has found notable by secondary sources, such as newspapers, books, etc
 * The Reuter's reference is actually a press release from the PAAD people (as is clear from the header and link ); so unfortunately this does not count in determining notability either.
 * The article from townhall.com is an opinion piece published on a conservative website.  I can't find any sign of the editorial oversight required to make it a reliable secondary source.  WP editors have, in the past, determined that townhall.com is only reliable for the AP articles it sometimes hosts and for the opinion (only) of individual notable writers.
 * We also need articles that talk about the day itself in a significant way; for this reason the Rimbey article is a very good one, though it is unfortunate that it is from a small local paper; the one sentence long mention of the day in the article in the Annals PT is great, but is not the kind of significant coverage required to establish that PAAD needs a article of its own, rather than a section or a mention in the article about Parental Alienation, for example.

So far, we have one local newspaper and one brief mention in a scholarly journal. This is a good beginning, but not enough to establish notability per WP:Nin my opinion. I'm happy to wait till after April 25th in the hope that some other newspapers etc will publish something about this year's day. If nothing much else emerges, then I would suggest that we merge some of the info about the day into a section of the Parental Alienation article, leaving a redirect in place. --Slp1 (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I was disappointed to read that you consider it unfortunate that the Rimbey article is from a small local paper when the article itself clearly demonstrates that the recognition of Parental Alienation Awareness Day is international. Based on consensus, I suggest that the article is worthy of remaining a separate article, and I suggest that the notability tag be removed. Michael H 34 (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Once again, I refer you to the Notability guidelines; what are needed are  multiple reliable secondary sources; claims of international recognition don't actually enter into the notability criteria. Hopefully, you will be able to find some more reliable sources, because I think the article as currently sourced would have a difficult time at WP:AFD, where the consensus would actually be arrived at, not here. If you want, you can remove the tag, but the point of it is  to  encourage people to add references that might actually help the article survive at AFD, which is presumably what you want. --Slp1 (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Multiple reliable secondary sources have been included as citations in the article, and in my view these sources are significant (even if they have been labeled by another editor as "small"), and provide evidence to help satisfy the presumption that this article about an internationally recognized day is notable in accordance with the notability guidelines. Michael H 34 (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Hello Slp1,

you wrote that your are need multiple reliable secondary sources.

Have a look on these arcticles for e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Cancer_Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Diabetes_Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Health_Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Dance_Day

These articles have no secondary sources and no reliable secondary sources. Are there to be deleted?

I think that there is a difference between an article whose content requires scientific recognition and an article which describes some of what has been proclaimed officially. For example: If someone would write an article on an unknown law then it is sufficient to refer to the law, because this applies.

You wrote: "claims of international recognition don't actually enter into the notability criteria."

I'm german. I'wrote this article about this Parental Alienation Awareness Day which is internationaly recognized. I'dont understand what do you mean with "international" and "national" respectively.

Is the english Wikipedia national?

If yes which nationality? US ? Canada? British? North America?

Do you want have canadian secondary sources because Sarvy Emo is canadian?

Or US secondary sources?

Or do you mean that reference articles in english language is needed equal which countries cames from?

Thanks in advance, Tiwian (talk) 10:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tiwian for your comments. I really think if you read the guidelines on notability you will have the answers to your questions. My comment regarding "international recognition" was in response to Michael H's claim that if one reliable source asserts that the day is internationally recognized then this is enough to make the subject notable enough to have an article here. It's just not true.  WP's rules say we need multiple independent secondary reliable sources about the PAAD.  These can be reliable sources in any language and from any country, though English sources are naturally preferred in an English language encyclopedia, as per WP:VUE.   Regarding other unsourced articles, unfortunately, yes, it's true that other sub-standard articles exist.  However, the argument that  other stuff exists is not an accepted as a legitimate argument in these discussions. Looking just at the World Cancer Day, I can also see from a quick search that there are multiple reliable sources that talk about the day, which could easily be added to the article..  That wealth of sources does not exist for the PAAD, as yet.  Maybe the next couple of days will produce more reliable sources.  BTW, Tiwian, can I ask if you are involved in the organization of PAAD activities? --Slp1 (talk) 11:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * you asked "if you are involved in the organization of PAAD activities?" --> No Tiwian (talk) 13:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "WP's rules say we need multiple independent secondary reliable sources about the PAAD."


 * The guidelines are guidelines. The guidelines are not rules or requirements.  Michael H 34 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * Yes, but articles that don't met the notability guidelines are eligible for deletion, per the deletion policy--Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Outdent:

I view this as a silly discussion. The term "Parental alienation awareness day" has 38,000 hits on google. Any judicious consideration of common sense would dictate that that alone makes it notable enough to have a WP article (I expect that some 90% of WP articles don't have such broad coverage online.) Though the nature of the article itself would certainly be dictated by what those actual hits are the very fact that they exist is notable in and of itself. For instance, if the majority of the hits are blogs promoting or decrying the day, that is a notable aspect of the day and the article can reflect that. All I see here is a non-sensible and militaristic adherence to policy for reasons that I will not speculate on. An article's subject doesn't need news coverage by CNN to be notable, in fact how many obscure species of plants and animals ever receive such coverage. It seems pretty clear that PAAD has been almost entirely promoted via the blogosphere and online social networking, sources that, while not ideal for WP are acceptable in the absence of more authoritative ones. If the day is not widely celebrated or recognized (and I strongly suspect it is not) the article's prose can say as much. Article's that do meet WP's notability guidelines should be deleted, though I note none of the advocates for maintaining the tag on this page ever nominate it for deletion, despite it being there for at least a year (based on when this talk section was created.) Either it's not notable and should be deleted or it is notable enough for inclusion and should have the tag removed. I am removing the tag and suggest that, rather than re-add it, editors who feel it is not notable (a group I do not belong to) simply WP:AFD it for a definitive determination of the issue.

Building on the above:

"Bermuda Proclaims April 25th as Parental Alienation Awareness Day"

--Cybermud (talk) 22:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure how/if this contributes the debate, but it's pretty funny. I think remember hearing about it at the time. --Cybermud (talk) 22:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional Potential Citations
, and  Michael H 34 (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Michael H 34


 * thanks Tiwian (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * you're welcome Michael H 34 (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34

Merge
This could easily be merged to parental alienation syndrome with a couple citations. I doubt there is a coherent set of activities that characterize all PAAD celebrations, so I've retitled it as "organizations" and removed the dubious ones. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, there's no reason to link to every single blog that mentions PAAD. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed out all but two of the organizations. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm and not a soapbox for everything related to PAAD.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should be reporting notable mentions that allow something to be said overall.  I still think this page could easily be merged into PAS.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. PAAD is about both parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome. Michael H 34 (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I agree that it should be merged, either with PAS or perhaps more likely with Parental alienation. There are very, very few reliable sources about this day; any ones there are not about the day (who founded it, what happens on the day etc), but very brief mentions in articles about other related subjects.  We should follow the lead of these articles and merge the information into the other article or articles until there is more specific information about the day itself. --Slp1 (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PA links to PAS, and PAAD can be noted in both as a single line. It was a mass of self-published and irreconcilable news sources.  It has simply not been around long enough to merit a separate article.  It can be recreated if it sustains interest, but for now it should not be a separate page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits
I know it was a lot of work putting in the links to all the declarations, but WP is not a link farm. Most of them were hosted on the parental-awareness website which would not be considered a reliable source in any case. I have deleted them. I have also deleted the section entitled "Press Reports"; WP does not typically collect random lists of press reports. I have however, reused them as citations for the article proper, even though they are very minor mentions in very small papers, and one has to wonder at the significance of them.--Slp1 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, looks much better. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 23:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)