Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everybody Draw Mohammad 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  Consensus is pretty clear on this one, but for the record, the !votes which cited a lack of reliable source coverage were no longer accurate at the time of the closure, the trending is more "keep" as the AfD continues, and at least one !voters gave a "delete or merge" option, which is a conflicted vote. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This observance seems to fall squarely in the realm of WP:NFT. It appears to be something made up recently by a blogger and has little or no true notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Generally, blog posts are not reliable sources. That is true in this article's case. It's really not notable either way. —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The article as it stands looks amateurish, but the event is real. It is a historical event in progress. There is a Facebook group on it, has accumulated about 100 drawings of Mohammed. Just because the blogs are picking it up does not invalidate it; they discussed Dan Rather's little mistake too, that was part of history. Google News lists 85 articles on it. John Stewart has done a commentary on it. The fix is to improve the article not delete. I will do this but I wanted others to have a chance not just myself.Friendly Person (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC) The preceeding comment was added by the article's creator. Just thought I'd point that out.
 * It would be better to make your own comment rather than tacking something onto mine. Yes, I am the creator of this article. I was invited to join this discussion by the person who nominated the article for discussion, or by the software that handles such matters. I presume it was so that I could defend the article. I labeled my edit as such. Peace, Friendly Person (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I put that on there is because, if the creator of an article is defending it at an AfD, they're supposed to say so. As far as I could see, you didn't. And I've also put my own comment at the end of this section. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  12:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi -- where is the guidance that says "if the creator of an article is defending it at an AfD, they're supposed to say so"? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wp:Articles for deletion - it's the third bulletpoint. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  23:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tx. Curiously, the lead-in makes it sound not like a "supposed to do", but rather says "here are a few basic practices that most Wikipedians use".  Could be poor drafting, though.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. What isn't there a Facebook group for? And although there appear to be several Google hits, if you look at them closely, they're all blogs. Erpert (let's talk about it) 22:33, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The L.A. Times has now picked it up. ... Ack, before I could get this edit squared away, the New York Times has now picked it up also. May I suggest waiting a few days before you all just nuke the article.Friendly Person (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, they can't get rid of it until seven days have run. By that point there will be dozens of reliable sources. The closing admin for this discussion will have to take those reliable sources into account and discount all of the comments made about notability that become outdated as evidence of the reliable sourcing builds and builds and builds. We need to start adding them to the article and editing the article to Wikipedia style. This AfD was probably inevitable, but it's a colossal waste of everyone's time. I suggest working on the article and, for the most part, ignoring this AfD. Deletion on notability grounds won't fly. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.  -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Where's the link to the LA Times article? Erpert (let's talk about it) 00:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Can't see anything on reliable sources to grant this notability. (And to Erpert - I've just googled "Everybody Draw Mohammad Day" and limited it to the LA Times website. It couldn't find anything.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  12:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should have "Everybody Spell 'Mohammed' Day", because that's how it's in the news . Whether it's historically notable or not is another matter. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course This is such utter nonsense. There are reliable sources. The Washington Post should be good enough for everybody. The Los Angeles Times  should be good enough for everybody. This is a website run by reliable-source broadcast-news organizations.  and  Serious subject + enough reliable sourcing = worthwhile article subject. Why, why, why do people bring these things up for deletion without researching the matter first? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC) removed my irate comments, see my comment with this same timestamp below for explanation
 * By the way, blogs are allowed as reliable sources when the authors of the blogs are professional journalists writing on the websites of news organizations. This applies to the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times blogs I link to above. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Name changed for accuracy Regardless of how anybody else spells "Mohammed" (more popular English spellings are "Muhammad" and "Mohammad", the subject of the article spells it "Mohammed". I moved the article to that title. The redirect should help with readers who use the initial article spelling, and additional redirect pages can be created for alternate spellings. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and changed the name of this discussion to follow


 * Keep, this has been getting a significant amount of secondary source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: Some people apparently were searching with way too narrow inputs. For example, 44 results for "everybody draw" and "south park". Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. Any search with a name like Mohammed/Mohammad/Muhammad is going to be problematic. I also found a number of sources now in the article by using the same search phrases Cirt mentioned. I can see how an editor might think this was not notable if an alternate spelling was used (and the article did have another spelling when it was put up for deletion). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work so far, the article is starting to look better, but it could still use some referencing improvement, and also utilization of some of the other more noteworthy sources out there covering this notable issue. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously those asking to have it deleted miss the entire point of the subject, that of being anti-censorship and for the basic human rights of free speech and access to information. JQF • Talk • Contribs 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, obviously. I'm sure it didn't have anything at all to do with the article having no reliable sources other than a blog.  Mandsford (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mandsford, that is an incorrect statement. The fact of the matter is that there are multiple WP:RS sources covering this subject matter in critical commentary and in significant amount. -- Cirt (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, and I was the first guy to look for them and find them simply by using the usual spelling for Mohammed (see above). When the article was first nominated, however, it sourced only to a blog.  My objection was directed to the suggestion that the people who first supported deleting it "obviously missed the entire point of the article".  That's not why it was nominated.  Mandsford (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is based on source coverage of the subject of the article, not the present state of the article itself. -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy just to get in the last word. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: Additional coverage of this subject, by sources including: The Washington Post, The Independent, National Post, The Wall Street Journal, FOX News, and National Public Radio. -- Cirt (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article needs some work, but that's not a reason for deletion. The AFD was obviously premature. Hence all the early comments that say there are no reasonable sources, even though tons of them have now popped up... —  Hun ter   Ka  hn  22:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:NOTNEWS. I am also concerned about the WP:BLP implications. The cartoonist who jokingly suggested this idea has clearly backtracked and is alarmed about the publicity this story has gained - shouldn't we respect her wish that the episode be forgotten? Also, the article is not about an "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day" because no such day actually exists. It's about a brief controversy that arose concerning censorship on a TV program. There might be a case for an article on the broader controversy, but not I think for a standalone article on this particular aspect of it. Gatoclass (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The phenomenon has taken on its own momentum, and it is likely the "day" will proceed with or without the endorsement of its original creator. It is certainly getting ample source coverage in other independent secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot justify articles based upon speculation about what may or may not be "likely" to occur. If an "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" actually gets established and becomes a notable event, obviously we can revisit the issue, but AFAIK that is not the case ATM. Gatoclass (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Gatoclass, I thought quite a bit about your WP:BLP concerns before I expanded the article, and I absolutely agree it's a proper concern. By having a Wikipedia article with reliably-sourced statements that she has backtracked, and hopefully an article that is prominent in the search engine results (right now it's #45, by my count), we help make it even more clear for anyone interested (or even half interested) that she backed off. She didn't just jokingly suggest the idea, however. She appeared on a radio show (quotes are in the article) and defended the idea. She pushed it. For instance, she's the one who sent the cartoon to Dan Savage, and the idea got its major, early boost from his posting it at his blog. This is all in the L.A. Times source in the article. The name of the article is the name of the subject, which is actually both a cartoon and a proposal. The subject is defined in the first paragraph as a proposal (I'm going to go back now and add that it's also a cartoon drawing). The controversy is larger. If this AfD somehow results in a deletion, a shorter version should be folded into 201 (South Park), the article on the TV episode. If, by May 20, this thing is shown to have deflated entirely (I'd judge that by whether or not we have news articles from a major news organization on that day or the next), I'd favor merging the WP articles. As Cirt indicates, what the cartoonist did was start a "movement". Movements proceed without overall organization, so it doesn't need the originater to proceed (although we'll see if her about-face deflates it). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It may not need the originator to proceed, but Wikipedia does not need to look like a promoter of the movement either, and this article is currently up for promotion to the front page via DYK. In regards to the cartoonist's own promotion of this notion, she herself summed up her present attitude to those actions with a single word: "Stupidity". Gatoclass (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to Gatoclass: It is already notable, due to the significant amount of coverage received in WP:RS secondary sources, regardless of what may or may not happen in the future. But those events are not reason to delete, especially in the face of the source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:EVENT. Gatoclass (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTE. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the part of WP:NOTE that says, "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:EVENT is a refinement of WP:NOTE, written precisely to address this kind of issue. You can't quote from the broad generalizations of WP:NOTE as if they somehow trump WP:EVENT concerns. Gatoclass (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is just that. Simply crying "WP:EVENT! WP:EVENT!", does not change that fact. -- Cirt (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does "change that fact". WP:EVENT was written specifically to deal with situations where the employment of NOTE would lead to undesirable outcomes. To put it another way, WP:EVENT essentially states that there are some circumstances in which WP:NOTE is not sufficient to establish the legitimacy of an article. You may disagree that EVENT applies in this particular circumstance, but you can't argue that NOTE trumps EVENT. Gatoclass (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: WP:EVENT -- there are so many caveats in that guideline that it essentially boils down to: "Do you think this subject will have a lasting effect in the future?" It's a judgment call. I would rather keep for now and wait a couple of months. If the event day fizzles, we'll know. If it produces quite a bit of coverage (and, say, a bunch of newspapers and magazines print cartoons with an image of Muhammad), then a great case can be made that there has definitely been an effect, one that looks lasting (how would cartoonists be threatened in this way in the future if very many of them do the same thing and they aren't then all targeted?). In other words, this AfD is premature. In any event, it isn't clear that this article is in violation of WP:EVENT. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I still think this information would be better added to a broader article about the controversy surrounding the South Park cartoons, or to the episode articles themselves. There's very little here to justify a standalone article in my view. And the brief (but limited) spike of interest this story got around a few blogs is likely to fizzle out just as quickly. Certainly I think we would be in a much better position to judge the importance of this story a few weeks from now. Gatoclass (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with merging it into the episode article(s) or specifically tying it to South Park is that, although Comedy Central's censorship was the immediate trigger that sparked this, it pretty clearly ties in with the broader dispute between Westerners valuing free speech and some Muslims who are offended by any depiction of Muhammad. cmadler (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay then well fold it into one of the existing pages dealing with depiction of Muhammed controversies, or maybe create a meta-page to deal with them all. IMO it's still somewhat difficult at this stage to tell whether this particular "event" will have any legs or if it will be a mere blip on the radar. Gatoclass (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete (or at least wait until May 20)
 * This is something not well-established (unlike the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy), presently only popular in USA, and sounds more like the "capitalist" hallmark holiday. If this article is there in Wiki, then all these days like US National Indian Pudding Day, Eat What You Want Day, and Draw a Picture of a Bird Day should also be included in Wikipedia.
 * Please use the spelling Muhammad instead of the old 'western only' version Mohammed in the article (except in the original title of the day obviously). Using the word Mohammed may gives an impression of an 'ignorant Americans' to certain groups of people. Everybody knows that nowadays you use Uluru instead of Ayers Rock, and Mumbai instead of Bombay. Same thing with Muhammad.
 * I don't know of any written source that is referring to this as "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day", regardless of whether that's how it "should have been" spelled. Mandsford (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally think that this article should not be an article of itself. I think it should be a section of an article about Molly Norris, which is not in Wikipedia right now (and probably won't be); or perhaps within the Muhammad cartoon article should be re-established. But of course we can wait until May 20, as it seems that this issue is gaining quiet a momentum.
 * I'm having a hard time thinking this as an encyclopedic material, I'm sorry.
 * Be aware that this article may upset people and create a long-lasting unnecessary war.--Rochelimit (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The spelling should reflect the original cartoon's spelling, which is "Mohammed". We would do this for the name of an old movie or book, as well, and it doesn't imply an endorsement of a particular spelling. This is a matter of accuracy, and I don't think we have a choice there. (Although, if it turns out more people are out there using a different spelling for EDMD, we'd be within guidelines to change it.) I don't know whether or not this article should use another spelling other than in the title and in the proper name of the cartoon. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this comment by regarding the spelling of the article. -- Cirt (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - It is a well put together article with fine references. The subject itself - the day - has seen some notable commentators giving opinion, also. It also doesn't seem like anything that's slowing down, with the date approaching, so it's not like it's some little event that has come and gone - it's ongoing and it's relevance/note only appears to be rising. I say a delete at this point would be a little hasty.--Breshkovsky (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cirt.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:THIRDPARTY a lot of valid / reliable sources out there for this..  Traxs 7   (Talk) 02:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cirt.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Very notable subject and the article is well sourced.--Gilisa (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable subject surrounding this whole South Park controversy. Str8cash (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cirt. -- Plasma Twa  2  04:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or see May 20, if it is not established widely, then delete or move to a subarticle of Muhammad cartoon, reading this entire discussion, I have the feeling that there's a slight element of 'promotion' involved.--Rochelimit (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's attracted plenty of notice from the mainstream press, and regardless of whether it started out as a foolish way of getting attention, it turned into more than that. Besides the sources already cited, it's in this week's issue of Newsweek and probably Time as well.  Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:NFT doesn't apply here. The movement has significant coverage from multiple reliable sources.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 14:21, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can certainly see how WP:NFT (Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia. Write about it on your own website or blog instead.) might have seemed applicable when the article was nominated, but it clearly doesn't apply in this case. The article clearly meets the WP:GNG. As for WP:EVENT, that guideline is problematic for any current event, because it requires "coverage that persists over a period of time"; this article seems to meet most or all of the other elements of that guideline. Going on, that guideline says "The duration of coverage is a strong indicator of whether an event has passing or lasting significance...However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." In this case, I think there's likely to be some persistance of coverage, due to the tie-in to what seems to be an ongoing clash between the Western value of free speech and the somewhat widespread desire of some Muslims to prohibit depictions of Muhammad. Although 201 (South Park) was the proximate inspiration for this, it's clearly also related to other instances of this conflict, such as the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Viewed in that light, as an episode in a much larger continuing dispute, I think this does have persistant notability. cmadler (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It appears that some people have mistaken Wikipedia for a promotional vehicle, not an historical record. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Let's stop covering issues in presidential campaigns as well.  And mention of the ipad.  I hate that promotional stuff mucking up my historical record.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A throwaway cartoon that has garnered some momentary attention is hardly of the same order of importance, surely. Gatoclass (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not the cartoon that "garnered some momentary attention", it is the response that did. I believe that 90% of people (and I am one of them), who know about the cartoons now, would not have known about them, if there were not the threats to kill over those cartoons.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK there have been no "threats to kill" over the South Park episodes, just a warning, though that might reasonably be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation. Let's try to stick to the facts please. Gatoclass (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Gato, I was responding of course to the !voter's post, which focused solely on the issue of promotion. You change the subject, trotting forth a "momentary attention" argument.  The problem with the "garnered some momentary attention" argument is manifold.  First, the person making the statement doesn't know that the attention is only momentary.  He can say that as to just about any single event, and in the initial days cannot be proven wrong.  I recall that being trotted out as well in the AfD over the Fort Hood Shooter.  Second, the attention here is decidedly more than "some".  In the first two full days of the article's existence, it garnered 3.6 thousand hits.  The phrase "some" is subjective, but I would say the attention it has garnered is significant.  Third, it appears that people on this page (to date) have a different view.  By a nearly 2 to 1 margin.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * the person making the statement doesn't know that the attention is only momentary
 * Yes, but that's not an argument for retaining an article, it's an argument for deletion. Articles should not be created until it is reasonably clear the subject will have some sort of lasting significance. And "attention" does not translate to "encyclopedic", I'm sure there are thousands of crufty topics on Wikipedia that get a lot more attention than this article, that doesn't make them more encyclopedic. Gatoclass (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I always stick to the facts--Mbz1 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @Gato: No -- I'm suggesting that when you say it will not have lasting significance, you don't "know" that. You're just saying words.  Whereas the number of hits the article has had, and the coverage it has had, suggest the opposite.  Furthermore, you say "'attention' does not translate to 'encyclopedic'".  Well, first of all what is 'encyclopedic' is another of those mushy phrases that people don't have a clear definition of, and what is in this encyclopedia is different than what is in any other, because of its different format and limitations.  Second of all, of course attention counts as to notability -- which is our test here.  Coverage in RSs in "attention".  We have it.  And we haven't seen it wane.  And we have enough for a wiki article -- as 2/3 of the editors here have said.  The consensus seems pretty clear that just this sort of article is what we editors feel is notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If we don't know whether it will have any lasting significance or not, what is it doing in the encyclopedia? Per NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, it's not our job to cover ephemeral events - certainly not to glorify them by giving them their own articles. As for your other comment about the majority thus far voting to keep, please see argumentum ad populum. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I love Latin as well. Fine language.  But since this is the English Wikipedia, I'll stick with WP:CONSENSUS. Policies and guidelines reflect established consensus.  Simply the way AfDs close, guidelines and policies are written, and business is done in these parts.  And the consensus on this page is indubitable.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You may well turn out to be correct, but the consensus is indubitable is still not a valid argument to make in an AfD. Gatoclass (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for proving my point. That is a warning, not an overt threat. If they had actually threatened to kill those writers, they would be under arrest. Gatoclass (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not an "overt" threat. Just a thinly veiled one. They posted a gruesome photo of the dead Dutch filmmaker, as well as the address of Comedy Central's New York offices, along with their statement that, gosh, something could happen to the creators of South Park. That isn't just an observation. What they put on the Web has been widely reported as a "threat" (that word used) by reliable sources. If New York cops and prosecutors don't think they can get a conviction, that's a separate matter. "Nice little cable channel ya got there, Comedy Central. Hate to see anything happen to it ..." Capisce? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, their actions could reasonably be interpreted as an attempt at intimidation. However, they don't rise to the level of an overt threat. If they did that they would almost certainly find themselves in trouble with the law. Gatoclass (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gato--That's a gross oversimplification. Threats are not black and white.  As Homeland Security will tell you, they appear across a broad spectrum.  And the responses of the law range widely, including backround checks (the Fort Hood shooter approach), surveillance (the Najibullah Zazi/New York City attempted subway bomber approach), speaking with the target privately (the Jihad Jane initial approach), and setting up the person with an FBI agent acting as a co-conspirator, up to the moment of the attack (the Michael Finton approach).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject is notable and there are reliable and significant sources. Broccoli (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  —cmadler (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep As previous users covered, it's definitely notable, as evidenced by the numbers of reliable sources. --Exer 505 (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. If on May 20 there's any real repercussion we can recover it, but as it stands now it's just not notable enough.--RR (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cirt. Seems to be quite notable with reliable and notable sources. Stellarkid (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Effort to organize the event has been called off by its creators per a RS, the LA Times. . It would help to promote it on Wikipedia, but is that what Wikipeda is about? 209.44.123.1 (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that I condemn or condone the movement but I'm not sure it's hers to call off anymore. Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 19:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This event may turn out to be a big event for the year in terms of culture and history, we do not know the implications of teh event yet and is related to notable controversy, KEEP!
 * Keep This provides information on a topic that people are looking for more information on. Deleting the post would give the appearance of caving into the extremists.
 * Good point. 1.7K hits on its first full day in existence, 1.9K on its second full day, and 1.8K on its third.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - I think that it's important to note that this article has received 3.6k views in the past two days. We may want to add Template:Not a ballot.  I don't see that any editors contributing to this discussion are brand new to Wikipedia but I would be surprised if that doesn't change.  Ol Yeller  '''Talktome 21:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The more I think of it the more I think the article is important even if the "Day" never comes off.  The dialog that has been generated is a big issue and it has tentacles to the  Danish cartoon situation as well as the Theo Van Gogh story. Stellarkid (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The amount of coverage this has already received in the quality press easily makes it notable. It is inconceivable that in future this event will not now also be remembered and brought up every time the Danish cartoon is mentioned.  Arguments that this is WP:NFT or WP:NOTNEWS really will not wash.  If this were not a controversial current event and were, say, an event in 1900 and we could find this amount of coverage in quality newspapers there would be no question that it meets Wikipedia notability standards.  There is no grounds for treating this article any differently just because it is current.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  11:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Additional (ongoing) coverage, subject itself referred to in the title of this secondary source coverage. The Daily Telegraph -- "America's disappointing reaction to South Park censorship: America's failure to rise up against the intimidation of cartoonist Molly Norris and South Park animators is a sad sign, says Alex Spillius." Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  —-- Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant coverage--I even heard this covered on CBS news on my car radio. If after some time has passed this is seen as a flash-in-the-pan story, it can be merged with Depictions of Muhammad. But the depth of coverage, as detailed in the article, points to keep. JNW (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Quite sufficient coverage my major media to pass WP:N. Favonian (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly received significant coverage in secondary sources. Editors opining that this is just a flash-in-the-pan news event have to prove it, but they can't at this point because the controversy is ongoing. Perhaps they should try to delete at a later time.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 04:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep given the growing number of reliable sources of high quality, the ongoing improvements to the article and the exponential increase in page views. Given that there is a near zero chance this article will be deleted (now -- possibly may be AFD'd later if it peters out), I'd vote for closing this AFD early per WP:SNOWBALL so that we can remove the AFD litter tag in the article. &#8756; Therefore cogito·sum 05:20, 3 May 2010 (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.