Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrate Bisexuality Day


 * 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) - Milk's   Favorite   Cookie  02:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Celebrate Bisexuality Day

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable and uncited. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Another borderline speedy keep from me today, but I can understand where it might be a tad difficult to find articles about something whose inception was this long ago, and this probably wasn't in bad faith; just lacking in forethought and research; still, it would be crazy to say this is not notable. Celarnor Talk to me  07:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: 8 References to news and archived news abstracts have been added. Celarnor Talk to me 08:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment "Lacking in forethought and research?" It's not my role as nominator to review the subject; it's the role of the editors to assert notability and provide some references. The article as it was when I tagged it did neither. I didn't look for any articles on the topic, although I'm sure that someone can easily find some reference to it on the Internet (at the very least from the founders' homepage.) Consequently, it is neither "crazy" nor "silly" to nominate this for AfD; it's perfect example of an AfD article. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion of material should always be a last resort. When considering something for deletion, you should go through yourself and make sure that the subject really isn't notable.  A quick google news search would have been more than sufficient to do that, and it only took me 30 minutes.  Had I not done that, this material would have been gone from Wikipedia, despite it's obvious notability.  While it may be the job of the creating editor to assert notability, that often isn't the case with new and inexperienced editors who don't about notability or reliable sources and simply ignore all the rules and go about editing the article and improving the project.  Also, the deletion policy discusses "content not being verifiable in a reliable source" as a reason for deletion; notice how it doesn't specify "content not being verifiable in a reliable source IN THE ARTICLE".  AfD is not forced cleanup.  When you see something that needs improvement or verification, you should be bold and fix it; if you can't find any sources, then put it up for deletion. Celarnor Talk to me  16:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thirty minutes? In addition to that being an astronomical amount of time to verify something's existence, most of these sources still don't assert any real notability; I don't know if this is a "holiday" that's just celebrated by three guys in a room. I can declare any significance to any day and I can probably find someone to celebrate with me; that is not significant. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, considering that I was doing other things during the time. But yes, the numerous articles do assert.  If it was celebrated by three guys in a room, it would not receive coverage in multiple news publications around the globe, and it certainly wouldn't receive it more than once; the coverage I've referenced involves at least two separate instances of the event.  While the fact that you yourself may do it is not significant, the media coverage that is received makes it so. Celarnor Talk to me  20:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, not really Many of these stories you cite are "man bites dog"-style news. If you don't think non-notable content gets into newspapers or on the Internet then you're in for a surprise. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As the 'style' of news is a completely subjective term, our notability guidelines rightly do not address such things. They simply require that they be indepdendent (which they are, with the exception of the press release), reliable and independent of the sources (which, being the Boston Globe and the Michigan Daily, that is certainly met, although I'll grant you that some of the things listed are specialty publications; however, even those are independent of the actual organization behind the event and are covering the event as a point of interest to their LGBT readers and as such aren't strictly not independent of the article's subject), and obviously, be sources that cover the material.  They don't say "It has to be a twelve-page exposé on the subject".  Just that it has to cover it. Celarnor Talk to me  08:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Twelve pages? So is it your assertion that every celebration or holiday mentioned in a reliable print newspaper is consequently worthy of a Wikipedia article? If so, you and I will have to agree to disagree. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If it can be verified and information given about it beyond 'it happened', then yes, why not? Especially when it is about a fringe group that doesn't regularly get coverage; it gives us a chance to include them in Wikipedia and further develop and improve the encyclopedia. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  17:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Chance to include Wikipedia doesn't exist for promotion or to include marginalized groups, that's why not everything that has happened gets an article. I don't see why fringe groups should be given any kind of priority in an encyclopedia. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a chance for something new to be included in the encyclopedia; a traditional encyclopedia wouldn't include such a thing due to space constraints, although there is information available about it that can be verified; it simply wouldn't be of interest to enough to people to warrant inclusion. We, however, do not suffer from that problem, and as such, should embrace new material when it can be shown to be of note, be verified and written on.  While naturally they shouldn't be considered of higher priority or somehow intrinsically 'better', at the same time they shouldn't be considered less priority or somehow intrinsically 'worse' simply by enumerating those who participate in it, as that leads us down the slippery slope of becoming majority-opinon-only.  For this reason, notability is not populraity.  And while you say Wikipedia shouldn't be used for promotion, we have an articles on things like International talk like a pirate day and Day of the Ninja that are also non-religious holidays; similarly, we also cover 'promotional' things like the 2008 presidential campaign, but I don't see you complaining about those. <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  22:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Inclusion and promotion I assume that you're familiar with the inclusionist/deletionist debate, so I'm not going to go about re-hashing it here and I've made myself clear about notability: it's necessary, and every article needs to assert it - as you yourself said "when it can be shown to be of note." Articles about phenomena that don't include any reason to think that the phenomenon in question is notable are candidates for deletion. I never said that notability is popularity, nor vice versa. I don't know if you're trying to make some kind of coy suggestion with your last sentence, but if so, I don't really want to get into some rhetorical back-and-forth; there's no need for implication. If you honestly think that the 2008 presidential campaign for president of the United States of America is of comparable notability or the same essentially promotional nature of an article on Celebrate Bisexuality Day, then we will have to part ways. Your examples of other Internet-based faux holidays were germane, but that was simply preposterous. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please, things like "Internet-based faux holidays" are not needed. While these comments are interesting and have certainly led to a very quickly much improved article, I think we are reaching the point of diminishing returns here. IMHO some of these arguments are beginning to veer into  we don't need this here, I don't care about it and the ever popular  Well I've never heard of it so it must be a hoax.  Peace people. BiAndBi (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I want to chime in with "yes, you really should do a bit of research on a topic before you send it to AfD and create more work for others...Hobit (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More work? What creates more work for whom? The "more work" of citing an unreferenced article? There shouldn't be any unreferenced articles on Wikipedia in the first place. I can't make any sense out of what you just complained about here. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't clear. Nominating an article for AfD creates work for everyone who looks it over.  Before you do so, it is helpful if you do a reasonable search (say 3 minutes).  If the article doesn't *assert* notability, but the topic has it, that's a clean-up problem, not an AfD. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Work Well, I suppose that's just the risk you run while watching AfD; I made this nomination in good faith that this article should be deleted precisely because it does not assert notability, which is one of the primary guidelines of writing an article on Wikipedia. It wasn't spurious or a joke. If the authors of an article can't assert notability themselves, and it's a topic of no interest to me, I'm not going to take the initiative to find articles that reference it (and furthermore, I'm still not really won over by the references that have been presented; many, if not all of them, I would not have used myself, as they are not substantive.) If everyone else who has edited it, watched it, or just read it, don't seem interested in asserting that this topic 1.) actually exists and 2.) is notable, then I'm not going to be inclined to do so myself. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I dare not look into the depths of this article, your reference listings is enough, don't need to be blinded, silly NSFW AfD. - Jahnx ( talk ) 08:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment What isn't safe for work? The word "bisexuality"? --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, now that references indicating notability have been added. Scog (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, had references (just not with hyperlinks). Better now. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — the correct course of action for this article was WP:EDIT, not WP:AFD. We should spend our time creating and sourcing notable content, not nominating it for deletion. Suggest withdrawal per WP:SNOW. EJF (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N and WP:HEY Hobit (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - And my bad that there were too few references. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It has been my habit when there are many similar articles on or references to a subject to pick only a few representative samples (those I think are the "strongest" or most "interesting") and to use them. So I go more for "brevity being the soul of wit", etc.  Otherwise I feel some articles have simply ended up looking like a link-farms.


 * For example in this case I could have started at the International Dateline and followed to sun around the globe adding in a link to every single celebration and commemoration listed, but I'm sure you can guess that after a while that would be silly. So it can be hard to know where to draw the line.


 * Additionally on those articles whose subjects are deemed (by a determined few) to possibly be about subjects that they find to be of a "controversial" nature, where "citation needed" tags are slapped on every word except for "a", "an", "and" or "the", the battle to keep up with it all has (IMHO) rendered some article's virtually unreadable.CyntWorkStuff (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep not to mention suggest withdrawal per WP:SNOW. Notable article that at best probably could have used prod tag or a clean-up tag combined with a polite note to its creating editor and/or other primary editors.  Which now that I research it is exactly what is recommended in Before nominating an AfD. BiAndBi (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The entry looks fine to me.Larry (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The debate has served its purpose and the article is in good shape now. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, WP:SNOW, as above. This is the kind of discussion that people have fun with, so I don't really mind the extra work, and I agree with the "served its purpose" comment immediately above.  But when I see "the same essentially promotional nature of an article on Celebrate Bisexuality Day", I have to ask what's being promoted ... the international bisexual cabal?  Sounds like people having fun to me. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Promotion What is being promoted on "Celebrate Bisexuality Day?" Bisexuality. It sounds like you're having fun by asserting some kind of paranoia on my part. An allegation about pleading by a certain group does not have to devolve into out-and-out conspiratorial nonsense (for an example of that, see below.) -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's like saying Kwanzaa promotes African-Americanism. It's not a recruitment drive, it doesn't seem like "come join us". By and large, it seems to be a celebration for people who are bisexual and who are proud of being so.  This is starting to approach the good faith line.  I don't see anywhere in the article where it 'promotes' bisexuality; could you give a specific example so it can be fixed and made more neutral? <b style="color:#629632;">Celarnor</b> <sup style="color:#7733ff;">Talk to me  01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This should be withdrawn. While the entry needed more work, it was in regards to a clearly notable event.  I believe that the nomination of this article reflects more on the anti-LGBT bias of the nominator than the quality of the article itself.  I have noticed that articles that support beliefs that are counter to what many Christians think are proper are held to a much higher standard, and are much more likely to get proposed for deletion where a simple note to improve the quality should have been sufficient. Rhonan (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow That's pretty bigoted of you. Please refrain from your own judgements about my presumed religious convictions and sexuality; it's irrelevant and crass. I'm not holding this to any higher standard than any other article: it was unsourced and didn't assert notability. I have personally tagged scores of such articles before about Internet celebrities, software, local organizations, and obscure holidays alike. Again, please try to act like an adult and don't make these outrageous assertions about my character and biases. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The WP:SNOW has fallen, a speedy closure is warranted at this point.  (jarbarf) (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.