Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposite 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  kept per finding of sources, nominator withdrawal, and some light frost. Non-admin closure. --erachima talk 20:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Opposite Day
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

this article has had nearly 3 years since its last afd. still no sources have been found. if the claims in the article are true then sources should be available and once found the article rewritten accordingly. Jessi1989 (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment i agree that the new article, based on the sources found since opening this afd, can be kept. it can still be greatly improved if further sources can be found. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... how do you source an article like this anyway? If the concern is simply having a source for the definition of opposite day, then The Game-a-Day Book by Gyles Brandreth, published 1980, might be a suitable reference. It's a book (which I own) that contains the rules for various children's games and has opposite day as one of its entries. For the liar's paradox bit I suppose the best resource would be books about logic puzzles. --erachima talk 20:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – I originally read the article looked at the nominators position and went Delete. Than I took a moment, stepped back and did a quick Google News search and lo and behold it came back with quite a few hits, such as the Economist – CNN – Washington Times & The Daily Princeton to name a few,  as shown here .  Article needs to be expanded not eliminated. ShoesssS Talk 20:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * if such sources do exist then they need to be added to the article and the article rewritten so that all the information is sourced by them. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article does need considerable cleanup, but that's not an AFD concern.  I did a 5-minute, toss-some-references-in pass, but there's a lot out there for further development.  Children's games and similar topics are sometimes challenging to document, but in this case, there's no shortage of material. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * doesn't the article need to be rewritten based soley on these sources? Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Keep: per the reliable sources that was found. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 22:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) *Delete: I took a look at the sources provided and they barely focus on opposite day. Schuy m 1 ( talk ) 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep cf following sources http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a793155733~db=all, http://disputatio.com/articles/024-1.pdf, http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/39344/173611526.pdf?sequence=1 Nick Connolly (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete because today isn't opposite day Nick Connolly (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * keep. One fairly good source, lots and lots of weak sources.  , , .  It's well-known (100,000+ Ghits) and has "good enough" sources for WP:N.  So keep. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * the reason i brought this to afd was concerns over wp:v rather than wp:n. none of the information in the article was supported by reliable sources. now some have been added but the majority of the article remains unsourced. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a reason to clean up the article, not to delete. If you don't like the sourcing, either add sources, trim the article, or request cleanup.  AfD isn't for cleanup. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i agree with you except to the point where there are not enough reliable sources to create more than one sentence of sourced information. if something is notable but no reliable sources can be found to support enough information to write an article, even a stub, then the article should be deleted. Jessi1989 (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Dang, I have to change my vote again. Schuy m 1  ( talk ) 01:19, 24 September 2008
 * keep the nomination asserted no sources, but it seems from what others have found, did not actually check. I have made a proposal on the AfD talk page to ake a simple procedural change that would help in such cases, which are fairly widespread--I intend no individual criticism. DGG (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * none taken. however i did check. i couldn't find any suitable sources to based an entire article on, and i don't believe the current ones are suitable either. so far all the information that can be sourced would be something along the lines of "opposite day is a game whereby on that day, things have the opposite meaning". this is hardly article material. as i said in my nomination, this was brought to afd 3 years ago, and kept on the assumption that sources would be found. none have. we need secondary reliable sources with enough information about opposite day to source an entire article. if you think these exist then please rewrite the article accordingly. Jessi1989 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Upon glancing at this AFD my first instinct was to write "keep per the new sources". However having now looked at these sources, I don't feel it would be right to do so. Am I missing something obvious, or do none of the sources being cited above provide any actual information about Opposite Day? The google news hits (at least, those that I can find) don't appear to discuss "Opposite Day" at all in this context, while most of the remaining sources above, while they use the term "Opposite Day", they don't cover the phenomenon in any detail and simply use it as a descriptive term or to introduce a philosophical concept. For example, the article begins with "Opposite Day is a fictional holiday which is celebrated by many schoolchildren" - but none of the sources cited so far, that I can see, contain anything that supports this. Basically the only information we have from the sources is a brief definition and I fear that unless we find an article actually covering Opposite Day as a "fictional holiday celebrated by many schoolchildren", rather than a philosophical term or a term used to introduce an exercise, we risk ending up with an article that is just full of WP:OR. I'll hold back my !vote for now while I try to find some more informative sources and take a closer look through those cited above in case I'm missing something glaringly obvious. Wiw8 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the exact verbiage used in the article is an editorial concern. When I did a quick cleanup pass to introduce what was admittedly intended as the first round of refs, I kept the lede phrasing generally intact.  Is Opposite Day a "fictional holiday" or a "childhood game"?  I'm not sure, and we'll probably have to cull more sources to conclude either way.  Either way, we could (and often do) far worse than we would by having an article that defines the activity in broad and basic terms, references it to child development sources (like Preschool Confidential, which devotes a section to it), and addresses its adoption as an educational and test-prep aid.  Are we aiming for FA here?  Probably not, but children's topics are notoriously under-cited in serious literature.  Regardless, my quest for more cites continues... Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What we have currently is a plethora of sources that assert the existence of opposite day. That is sufficient to establish notability of opposite day. Any claims in the article about opposite day do need further sourcing but that is a separate question from whether the article should be deleted. Nick Connolly (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * comment from wp:v:
 * I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information. – Jimmy Wales
 * Jessi1989 (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, remove the information if needed, keep the article. That said, #1  It appears you modified the quote and #2 If we removed every single non-cited fact on wikipedia, we'd lose 90% of it.  This isn't pseudo-information.  Do you honesty doubt the truth of any of this article?  If so, _that_ in particular should be removed.  AfD isn't for clean up.  Editing is. Hobit (talk) 18:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. i only removed the last clause of the quote because it was not relevant to this discussion. 2. the fact is, if we would lose 90% of wikipedia then it would be a better encyclopedia, and every article would be written according to at least one of its policies. wikipedia policies are there for a reason and they are non-negotiable. my or your thoughts on the truth of this matter are irrelevant. i did not bring this to afd because of my personal feelings as to whether this topic is true. i brought it to afd because no reliable sources had been found in over three years. nothing should exist on wikipedia without sources for three minutes, let alone three years. i repeat, these are not my personal opinions, these are wikipedia policies which every article should abide by. here's another quote from wp:v although i suggest you read the whole page:
 * The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
 * Jessi1989 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that there is material here that you are challenging or find likely to be challenged? Hobit (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * yes i am challenging any information that is not supported by a reliable secondary source, which is currently the entire article except for this sentence "Because it encourages understanding of antonyms and critical thinking, Opposite Day play has been compared to a children's "philosophy course", employed as an educational aid, and suggested as preparation for standardized testing." Jessi1989 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to be trying to make a WP:POINT here. Articles are required to be verifiable, not verified. The article has gone unsourced for three years because the claims it makes are trivial, thus do not require attribution per WP:CS, and no one has complained about the page but policy wanks. Also note that I offered a source for the basic tenants of the page above. --erachima talk 22:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry but you have clearly misunderstood wp:v. all information in every wikipedia article is required to be verified by at least one reliable secondary source. please read wp:v and wp:rs. Jessi1989 (talk) 22:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Read 'em and wrote 'em, what's your point? The relevant policy statement here is from WP:V, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." (bolding in the original). Additionally, the "I challenge every statement in the article" stance has been repeatedly ruled a disruptive and lawyerly approach to improving articles, as it wastes the community's energy on the correction of technicalities rather than in the performance of higher priority tasks.
 * In short, if you find an uncited page but do not honestly believe that its claims are inaccurate, then you do not waste our time attempting to delete it, as adding citations to non-exceptional statements is not an urgent fix but rather an eventual improvement to be made when an interested editor decides to do so. If you feel compelled, you may fix the reference problems yourself, or tag the page for needing additional references with uncited or refimprove. --erachima talk 22:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * i hardly think i have wasted anyone's time here. this article was tagged for ages and no sources were added for years. because of this afd, editors have helped to find sources and i have re-written the article based on them. hopefully this afd will also encourage editors to find more sources on this subject and improve the article further. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * hi again, sorry but i didn't see you first paragraph and only responded to the second. i think maybe you didn't have a look at what this article looked like when i took it to afd. i wasn't just challenging some technicalities as you suggest, the entire article was unsourced. i completely agree that if someone disagrees with a few sentences of an article then they should not take it to afd. sorry for the confusion, but what you have interpreted as an "i challenge every statement in the article" stance was actually me saying "nothing in the article was sourced". anyway, i think with the sources that have been found since i brought this to afd an article can be written. after three years with no sources i hardly think that you can say that this afd hasn't benefited the encyclopedia. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * comment i have rewritten the article based on the new sources that have been provided. i think this version can be kept although it is desperate need of more sourced information. please improve the article if you can. Jessi1989 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 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.