Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Pants Day (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Not seeing one side having a stronger argument than the other and I can't imagine relisting will change that. J04n(talk page) 23:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

No Pants Day
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable event that failed prior AFD in 2005. Lots of Google hits (many of which are copies of this long-standing Wikipedia article), no sources cited in the article. May qualify for speedy deletion under db-event but due to the article's long history with many contributors since 2005, I thought it best to open discussion here. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable: no sources added to article and lack of meaningful media coverage Ansh666 21:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC) (unstruck and re-worded...what happened to it?! Ansh666 16:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC))
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  23:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - Anyone asserting "no sources" isn't looking. HERE is the Daily Mail from 2010. Fairly massive mainstream coverage, although the article here is unsourced and contains factual errors, such as the date being in May, when it has clearly evolved into a January event. Where is Article Rescue Squadron when you need them? Oh, that's right, the deletionists busted their balls over specious canvassing complaints so now there's no way to flag something like this for the remedial work by a skilled Wikipedian that it needs. Regardless, clearly a notable event in that it is covered by multiple, independently published sources in the mainstream press — and over a number of years. Carrite (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where is this "massive mainstream coverage"? There are only 11 hits on Google News, and at most one of them meets the criteria of having significant coverage and being a reliable source. So with the Daily Mail, we have two -- hardly convincing evidence of notability. After 8 years, that's the best one can do? ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "There are only 11 hits on Google news"? Did you not know that two "good" sources is loosely considered to be sufficient to establish wp:notability?  Unscintillating (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you're getting 11 Google News hits. The search linked by the nomination procedure finds about 100. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Carrite, While I agree with what you say about the canvassing, IMO the problem of unnecessary AfD nominations is not solved by editing articles while they are at AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This is generally true, but in cases like this with factual errors that need fixing, isn't it nice to be able to toss a life preserver on the top of the piece and have somebody get the piece up to our standards for accuracy? Carrite (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Incubate Way too much WP:OR to leave on mainspace in its current form.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable event that has been running some time. Book results: I see this,, which includes a detailed description of the event, and subsequent editions of the book, up to the present year, also list it as an event. It receives annual news coverage and press attention. It does occur on both days, the January date (receiving BBC coverage here and earlier, here. Also coverage in the Guardian here with a link to an earlier article from 2010. Global News, Mirror, gallery in the Independent, - indeed, if I search for the string <<"no pants day" news>> in Google, I get dozens of American, Canadian and British (and probably more internationally - the Huffington has something about the event in Taiwan) news articles and hits from newspaper websites about this. While it may be a gimmick, this is surely clear significant coverage - yes, probably because it's about people whipping off their clothes in public, but that's what sells papers. Mabalu (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: No coverage from reliable sources. So far our sources include the following:
 * A variety of articles in the British press and HuffPo about pantsless subway rides in January and February, while this article is talking about a holiday in May.
 * An entry in Chase's Calendar, but a calendar entry can hardly be considered "significant coverage." Furthermore, the descriptions of events in this book are written by event sponsors, and the book is not really edited to limit entries to events of any note. All anyone has to do to get listed in Chase's is to submit an entry online.
 * A piece from Yahoo's contributor network, which is a largely unedited, unregulated pay-per-word editorial free-for-all, and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source.
 * No Pants Day makes for great pictures for the tabloids, but there isn't much serious coverage. At the very least, I would expect that if this were a truly notable holiday, our sources could at least agree what day it falls on; as it stands, we don't even know what season it's in.
 * It sounds delightful, but I still say "delete." — Bdb484 (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Even better, the article has since been edited to reflect that this is actually a weekly holiday that "was originated by House Unity of the Kingdom Of Atenveldt." Nonsense begets nonsense. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ... but there's no reason to leave it in the encyclopedia. I've revertd. Pam  D  10:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree there's no reason to leave it in, but I'm not sure that reverting is the way to handle it; all you've done is replace one set of assertions with no reliable sources with another set of assertions with no reliable sources. It's all WP:MADEUP anyway, so why give preference to either claim? — Bdb484 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's spread to New York (Village Voice), Montreal (Global BC), Vancouver and Toronto (National Post and Vancouver Sun). Even the Times of India has taken notice. I'm a diehard deletionist, but this is ridiculous (in two ways). Clarityfiend (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So go on and add the sources to the article. Pam  D  10:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Invalid sources, not an argument to keep. Those sources all pertain to the No Pants Subway Ride, which occurs on a different date than No Pants Day. It's different topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:EVENT for, amongst other things, not having a lasting effect. News coverage is likely as a "water cooler story", not serious coverage. 1292simon (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see how the lasting effect argument works here. It happens regularly on an annual basis, and has been ongoing for a number of years, not just a one-off event one year. Plus, it takes place in several countries simultaneously, and I'm pretty sure it's something that is a household name. That seems pretty notable and lasting to me. Plus, regardless of whether or not coverage is "serious", it is undeniably extensive and ongoing - every year there is a spate of articles/reports on it whenever it comes up. At the very least it should be incubated, but I think it is a totally legitimate article subject. Mabalu (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
 * But the pantsless subway rides are not the same thing as No Pants Day. NPD is (allegedly) an entire day in May in which you don't wear pants. These subway rides are apparently generally confined to the subway and happen in January or March. Maybe there should be article about not wearing pants on the subway, but that's not the same as this. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think some people here are getting their pantsless events mixed up! 1292simon (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - So should the page then be moved to one about the subway/Tube rides thing - and if so, what do we call that? However it seems that most people think of that as "No Pants Day" so it is clearly a popular and widely known title, even if it is not technically "correct"... Mabalu (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as the article stands it fails WP:EVENT, the coverage linked to above is of the and finally reporting, no real background and history of the event.  LGA talk  edits   07:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I just added 18 references, so it now passes GNG. Enduring? Yes, it's recurring, so enduring, and it's also an enduring annoyance to subway operators, who are considering an enduring rule to prevent it, I think I read. It also has an article at Suomi, Magyar, 中文, translate those as you wish. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Nearly all those references appear to be trivial mentions and galleries or slideshows, hardly qualifying as significant coverage, and should be removed. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * More than half have a decent paragraph or two. GNG says, and that can include images and video news, which convey information too.
 * But what about the difference between No Pants Day, No Pants Subway Ride? Isn't it the same thing? The media seems to think so. Plus, when they go to work on the subway, do they put their pants on? And moreover, aren't "pants" underpants in England? Shouldn't it be No Trousers Day to prevent misunderstandings leading to complete nudity? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * So many pressing questions. ..
 * It seems clear to me that No Pants Day and the No Pants Subway Ride are different things, although the media seems to frequently use "No Pants Day" as shorthand for the subway ride, especially in headlines. So I launched a No Pants Subway Ride article (with sources), and I think we can let each one sink or swim on its own merits. — Bdb484 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, given that distinction, I don't think the current sources belong on this article, so I'm going to pull them. I expect some editors could think I was trying to start a pissing match, so I'll implore anyone who disagrees with that move to revert me, no questions asked. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think this AfD discussion has been compromised by the confusion between No Pants Day and the No Pants Subway Ride. Despite the claims here of reliable sources for No Pants Day, I note that the article still doesn't have any reliable sources... 1292simon (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2013 (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.