Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Surfing 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. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

International Surfing Day

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

Nom - Lacks notability or sources indicating notability. This article has been speedied once before, so it belongs in AfD now. Rklawton (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   -- Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  00:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cast it to the undertow, dude. Delete.  Not even official, man, and only covered by a single magazine.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 01:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Killer save, dude. Keep.  Better sources. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wipeout No reliable sources pertaining to this made-up day. It seems like they can declare any day a holiday now; I hereby declare March 10 National Otter Appreciation Day. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per addition of sources and continue to expand. Very nice save. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a bonafide holiday celebrated by hundreds of surfers around the world. Comment above is incorrect. This year's event was covered in several surfing magazines worldwide, including Tracks, Transworld Surf and Surfing Magazine.  International Surfing Day was also mentioned on several national television programmes, including the Ellen Degeneres Show and The Colbert Report.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.103.147.4 (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless some sources can be found that show this is in any way notable, delete. Reyk  YO!  05:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep- well done on the sources. Reyk  YO!  22:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep Speedy keep due to sources added recently by Myheartinchile that establish notability. --Explodicle (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, even the nom just wants to merge now. No delete opinions anywhere, let's close this. -- Explodicle (T/C) 14:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - Sources do seem to demonstrate some level of notability.  TN ‑ X - Man  13:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kudos to User:Myheartinchile for the work done since the correct nomination.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 15:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Refrences seem to apply nicely TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 19:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * MOTION TO CLOSE AFD AND Keep per improvements.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply please do not be so anxious to shut down this discussion. Rklawton (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * please don't be so combative to a perfectly legitimate motion. i suggested the closure since there seemed to be near unanimous consensus and every delete vote but the nominators was changed to keep.Myheartinchile (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, ok... Let's all keep cool. The facts speak for themselves on either side, there's no need to get mad. -- Explodicle (T/C) 04:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FTR i'm not mad.Myheartinchile (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Second motion to close AFD and KEEP Legitimate event that is obviously celebrated worldwide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.119.34 (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - AfD's aren't a vote. They are a debate, and the closing admin will weigh the merits of each argument rather than merely count votes.  Rklawton (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - If it has been demonstrated that this event is being by celebrated tens of thousands of people worldwide, how is that not noteworthy? ISD has been going on for the last four years (as has Go Skateboarding Day).  Why is this even an issue?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.119.34 (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * We can only speedy keep if no one but the nominator thinks we should delete, and the nominator wants a merge or something. Rklawton has indicated he'd be OK with a merge, but TenPoundHammer hasn't changed his mind . -- Explodicle (T/C) 19:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no one wants to delete, Rklawton, would you have any objections to closing this and starting a merge discussion? -- Explodicle (T/C) 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * oppose merge merge where? merge with what?Myheartinchile (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the suggestion was The Surfrider Foundation. -- Explodicle (T/C) 04:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * that would be inadequate since the holiday is separate and most celebrations are unrelated to the group.Myheartinchile (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Lacks notability? I wouldn't wave so much in me not knowing such an event. A private man not knowing something doesn't make it un-notable. It's very known and notable. Log in, log out (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, what do you mean?Myheartinchile (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * What i mean is that this topic is notable, that day is a famous event, and it should be keept. Log in, log out (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Improvement review - The above editor has made a laudable effort to illustrate the subject's notability by adding many new sources. Now, let's take a look at these sources individually and continue the discussion anew: What this article needs are *reliable* sources that contain information within them that satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. That's not what we're seeing with the sources provided. A few beach cleanups sponsored by the "Surfrider" organization says more about the organization than it does the "holiday". Therefore I propose moving salvageable material to the "Surfrider" article and deleting this one unless or until it actually grows some legs. Rklawton (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  - Indicates that this is not an official holiday.  It was created by "Surfing Magazine" as a self-promotion.
 * 2) - Is a press release and does not qualify as a reliable source
 * 3) - Is from a blog and again fails as a reliable source.
 * 4) - A local paper (only) indicating that this "holiday" has just entered its fourth year - hardly time to gain sufficient notability
 * 5) - This source comes from a local paper promoting a local event.
 * 6) - Is another press release (if I issue enough press releases, do I get my own holiday, too?)
 * 7) - Highlights a local event
 * 8) - Very short article about a local event from local paper with unsupported claims for an "international" event
 * 9) - Local paper/article about Surfrider - makes me think this article could be merged with the Surfrider article since all the local articles so far revolve around Surfrider-organized beach cleaning activities
 * 10) - An article about something else with only a passing mention about ISD
 * 11) - The short article comes from an online magazine currently in its 5th issue.
 * Pointing out a few "bad" references does not invalidate the large amount of reliable sources and non-trivial media coverage, i have however added more references, as for refs that verify but don't assert notability, they are essential and absolutely allowable for the purpose of filler.Myheartinchile (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems kind of a stretch to discredit press releases and local news as reliable sources. ISD might be new and it might be a Hallmark holiday, but if we've got the right sources and a willing editor that's no reason to delete. I wouldn't be opposed to a merger, though. At worst, we should redirect while retaining the edit history. -- E x p l o d i c l e TC 14:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - Press releases are absolutely not reliable. Local news may well be reliable but should not serve as indicators of notability.  Verifying that something exists to some small extent is just not sufficient.  However, I like your recommendations.  Rklawton (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My first choice is still that we keep. Those local news articles are independent, secondary sources that address the subject directly in detail, which appears to conform with WP:N. Is there a consensus against local news that I'm not aware of? -- Explodicle (T/C) 02:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no such concensus that I know of. Upon reading these (relatively few) local articles, it's clear they are more about beach cleanup and surfriders - hence my recommendation to merge.  Note also that with a Google search on News, it's pretty clear that the few local articles added to this article are pretty much ALL there is for coverage of this event.  This makes it pretty clear that it's not sufficiently notable to stand on its own.  Rklawton (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * please read WP:N this article clearly has many reliable secondary sources, sources mind you that it has gotten significant coverage in these sources and that coverage must not be exclusive to be significant. Furthermore the articles don't cover beach clean up and surfriders, the common subject is beach clean up on international surf day because of the holiday and because of surfrider. There is coverage in Argentinian press, mexican press, australian press, american press in several states just to start with, so that is beyond local. Significant coverage establishes notability and consensus establishes that this is enough to merit an individual article.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Each of those articles has Surfrider in common. Rklawton (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, but then by that logic the article on the Exxon Valdez oil spill would be posted solely under Exxon and Lance Armstrong would be posted under the Tour de France. Yes, the Surfrider Foundation plays a significant role in International Surfing Day.  However the event itself is much, much larger and inclusive of the surfing community as a whole. Matty3121 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * and that someone invalidadtes their integrity? the articles only mention surfrider in passing and are not afiliated.Myheartinchile (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep: Although this event definitely has commercial roots, it appears to have become a major cultural event within the sport of surfing as evidenced by its wide international observance and appearances in multiple media outlets beyond "Surfing Magazine". Although lacking the long history of such events as Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, this article is similar to such already approved articles in that it is a holiday event with commercially driven motives.Nrswanson (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Third motion to end discussion, a celebration held in over 30 countries and territories and this is sourced information is clearly notable, even if it is masterminded by one group that it is not. The nomination is clearly just wrong and with 25 sources it is WP:HOPELESS to keep this discussion going especially since all have voted for a unanimous keep except the nominator which has yet to vote. All delete votes have been swayed by improvements.Myheartinchile (talk) 06:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You can make all the motions you want, but we still don't vote; an uninvolved third party would have to decide if this is a snowball keep. Why the rush, anyways? -- Explodicle (T/C) 13:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just made two. I wanna rush it so this article can be featured on WP:DYK before its too late.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - If the event is much larger than Surfrider, prove it with reliable sources demonstrating that it goes far beyond Surfrider (as you say). Otherwise, merge with Surfrider.  Rklawton (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Its been done already, you're just being recalcitrant now.70.1.45.212 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - Obviously notable, particularly with the improvements made during this AfD. Please speedy close this AfD so that the article can be used on DYK before its DYK nomination expires. Bebestbe (talk) 22:36, 1 July 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.