Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Speak Like A German 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 of the debate was Speedy delete by User:Woohookitty A drian L amo ··  10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

International Speak Like A German Day
0 google hits, not an established holiday, despite this "declaration". I suspect we might get a lot of new users showing up to tell us how important it is, I'd like to remind them that we need verifiable evidence from third-party sources, personal assertions are not sufficient. Kappa 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.  --Allen 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable.  No external verifiability; all "references" provided are self-referential, and even searching for the broader "speak like a German" yields nothing relevant.  Also calling WP:VAIN and WP:POINT on statement and first person pronoun use: "This is an established thing. WikiPedia can't delete it, because I delcare it established. - Kez".  Not even close to being Pirate Day, of which even I've heard. --Kinu 05:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dont delete. ZGeek.com is a Third Party Source. As I have created this new "holiday" as you would like to call it, I will call your attention to http://forum.zgeek.com/showthread.php?t=46967. That thread has a number of "third party sources", that will verify that people have actually partaken in this "holiday". Wikipedia being the first party, myself being the second party, and ZGeek.com being the third party, thus justifiably making any form of "personal assertions" a valid confirmation. I see that this is all about a "majority", and how can you critisise this if you've never heard of it? You've all heard of Talk like a Pirate day, because people got the word out. We are trying to get the word out, so in effect, you're generating a nice big slab of hyprocracy and supression on the internet. Non-notable? You're not even giving it a change to be notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.44.182.149 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: An item generally belongs on Wikipedia after its notability is established, as Wikipedia is not a cart-before-the-horse means for establishing this notability, nor is it for "advertising" to that end. I doubt anyone is criticizing it for never having heard of it; not trying to bite, but I feel they are simply stating that it does not gel with why wikipedia exists.  As for Pirate Day, that page was first created, per its revision history, in 2003, certainly well after its inception and popularity grew per the article's references; thus the comparison here is fallacious. --Kinu 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity and spamvertising. Royboycrashfan 05:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Perhaps even speedy delete. Improper, self-serving, unencyclopaedic. VirtualSteve 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up on other websites a little while ago. Daniel Case 05:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding Herr Kez's compelling defense of his creation, I added a nonsense speedy on RCP, then a prod and will now vote delete here on AfD to remain consistent. -- JJay 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Can't sleep, clown will eat me. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, hoax. Gazpacho 05:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Schnell, bitte. Zgeek.com doesn't really cut the mustard according to Verifiable as a reliable published source. Capitalistroadster 05:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, hoax or non-notable neologism. And to think 160 million people celebrate this every day of the year! J I P  | Talk 06:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I don't even need to explain this one, do I? Geez ... A drian L amo ··  06:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, Kinu, et al. –Sommers (Talk) 09:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nn. (The fact that someone apparently involved in the article has come here and essentially stated it is not yet notable makes this even clearer.) Essexmutant 10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
Give us 5 days to actually gain notoriety about this holiday. If I fail, then delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.44.182.149 (talk • contribs)
 * That's not how we do things here. Gazpacho


 * 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.