Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak and Blowjob Day (Third 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 of the debate was delete. - brenneman  color="000000" title="Admin actions">{L} 14:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Steak and Blowjob Day(Third nomination)
First AfD was full of sock/meat puppets and led to a no consensus. Same basic problem still stands. A day made up by one radio guy is not notable.JoshuaZ 00:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not at all notable GassyGuy 00:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Noteable by Radio Licence.Trjn 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete talk page reads like a frat party. Danny Lilithborne 01:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If the content of a talk page were one of the criteria for deletion, Wikipedia would be far, far smaller than it is today. Raindog469 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above Hobbeslover talk/contribs 01:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. BuckRose 01:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Post afdanons now or wait? Fan1967 02:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as recreated content per this AFD Articles for deletion/Steak and Blowjob Day BigDT 02:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The argument on the talk page is that the last AfD was closed early. Let's give this thing the full debate (puppets and all) so there will be no debate next time. Fan1967 03:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable made up holiday Wikipedia has an article for Talk like a pirate day, so why not this? I acnowledge that this was a recreated article. but I have to wonder why it was deleted in the first place.Deathawk 03:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then read the earlier AfD. It's pretty clear. Fan1967 03:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: The holiday is 4 years old now, I personally celebrated it this year with a friend despite not living in Boston and having never heard of this DJ, and the article is currently the #1 result on Google for "steak and a bj day". I just looked it up randomly tonight when a friend questioned the date, leading me to this discussion. In short, the subject of this article is considerably more notable now than when it was deleted last year.  Raindog469 04:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ''Note: Comments on this AFD are essentially the only edits Raindog469 has ever made (contribs). -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - having the article being #1 Google result for a search of the actual term is not much of an argument for keeping the article - if I made up a hoax article on "Give Confusing Manifestation Money Day" it would be number 1 in its search. More important would be things like - is it being covered in major media? Is there a chance of it getting included in some kind of official calendar? Does anyone notable publicly endorse it? If you can give strong positive answers to those, then you can put them in the article, and maybe make it saveable. Confusing Manifestation 13:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Precedence, Radio Stations with a license are noteable, and can then also (in a weak fashion) be a major media outlet. Its not solid, of course, but it helps the articles case. Google Trends show that it gets the same, if not more, hits than other 'similar' holidays. The chance of it showing on a calander is completely objective too, and shouldnt really be considered as an against point. Many day-to-day calanders have many random, interesting or inane facts on them, all produced by major print companies, and a day like this would fit right into one of those forms. The calander I use is made by a major publisher, and it doesnt have Hanaka listed, or many other major holidays, nor does it have many minor holidays. Trjn 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Trjn, while I'm a pretty strong supporter of this new holiday, the pirate one is called Talk like a pirate day and not "speak like a pirate day". The former dwarfs the various permutations of Steak and Blowjob Day on Google Trends, likely due to the necessity among those promoting Steak and Blowjob Day in the mainstream media of referring to it as "Steak and _______ Day" where "_______" is some euphemism.  To Confusing Manifestation, however, I would point out that this article is not a hoax; the holiday does exist and the Google search I previously mentioned  shows many other hits including the 4-year-old "steakandbjday.com" domain, which comes in at #3.  Given the subject matter it's not that surprising that people might feel it was an offhanded radio joke, but as also previously mentioned, some of us who don't live in New England or listen to that sort of radio show do celebrate it.  Novelty does not equal lack of notability, nor does an uncomfortable concept. Raindog469 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This is clearly a very important holiday of note in New England, every male in New England celebrates this holiday--Kev62nesl 06:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Made up.  Not notable.  Previously deleted.  Not terriby funny. -- GWO


 * Comment Of course this is a made up holiday, No Holiday ever made itself. Someone one had to make them, usually hallmark. How are we deleting this and keeping talk like a pirate day or secretaries day.--Kev62nesl 06:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Publication by a licensed radio station makes the event noteable. Trjn 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete until it becomes a national holiday. ~ trialsanderrors 07:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There arent very many national holidays around the world. I assume you mean a public/bank/free-day-off holiday. Fathers day is not, infact, most 'holidays' are not national holidays, I know this is a pretty bad argument against, but its not a very strong argument for, either. Trjn 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I've heard it mentioned in multiple places, and had no idea it was created by a guy on the radio. jgp 09:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not encyclopedic. Chicheley 09:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, there is no limit to its growth. Not to mention the very word 'encyclopedic' means encompassing and embracing all fields. The argument is flawed, could you elaborate? Trjn 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No indication of significance whatsoever. Delete.--Sean Black 15:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I really think that over 40,000 Google hits (on the quoted phrases "steak and bj day" and "steak and blowjob day") ought to be considered proof of significance, not to mention notability. People are plainly looking for information on the holiday, no matter what the deleters' personal feelings on the matter may be. Raindog469 16:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - While I love this holiday, it is hardly notable. When we start seeing holiday cards for this, then sure, we can have an article on it.  Hong Qi Gong 16:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sadie Hawkins Day is a holiday made up in a comic strip, with a similar level of interest as Steak and Blowjob Day, and no officially recognized observances, yet is not marked as an AfD. As for SaBJD greeting cards.... well, they're not pretty, but they do exist. [www.cafepress.com/buy/steak/-/pv_design_prod/p_texasbigbird.43375193/pNo_43375193/id_10522426/fpt_________ar__gQ_DA____a___H/opt_/c_59/pg_] Part of the whole idea of SaBJD is "no cards, no flowers, no nights on the town, just...." well, you know the rest.  So greeting cards really shouldn't exist, even though they do.  Raindog469 16:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Would it make the deleters happy if the article were renamed to not include the word "blowjob", and a redirect left in place the way "blowjob" currently redirects to "oral sex"? I really get the impression that the lack of notability people are citing is actually squeamishness, as there are certainly less notable topics on Wikipedia. Raindog469 17:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Wp:not; the use of offensive language, even in the title, should not be an issue. The fundamental issue here is whether every idiotic idea some DJ proposes on the radio deserves an encyclopedia article.  The goal of wikipedia is to document significant things and events, not to provide a forum for popularizing insignificant cruft.  That's what the debate should focus on.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume that by your use of the term "idiotic idea" and other deleters' use of the term "bad joke" that many of you have some personal problem with the subject matter. What makes the aforementioned Sadie Hawkins Day, with a similar originally-joking origin and current level of popularity, notable that doesn't also apply to Steak and Blowjob Day? Raindog469 18:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes Sadie Hawkins Day notable is that it's been around since 1937. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This pales in comparison to relatively important world celebrations like International Talk Like a Pirate Day.  There is no evidence this holiday actually exists, other than as a radio and internet joke.  Small holidays do deserve articles, but bad jokes do not.--Pharos 18:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not good enough for Bad Jokes....   &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Too well known, too much press coverage, too many nominations. --JJay 22:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * DELETE, salt, and damn the sockpuppets from the first nom. Its a a neologism crated by a disc jockey, nothing more.  Kevin_b_er 01:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't notable and this is an encyclopaedia. Being 4 years old or being celebrated by someone participating in this AfD doesn't make it notable. No reason to keep this. --Rory096 05:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think 45,000 google hits demonstrates its notability. If it doesn't, and if Trjn's referenced "licensed radio station" argument holds no water, I think the criteria for notability needs to be made a little more concrete. Raindog469 18:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Licensed radio stations are automatically notable. A single meme one creates isn't automatically notable. 40,000 Ghits isn't very much for a meme. --Rory096 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, nn Jaranda wats sup 06:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Would anyone who has no new argument to this please refrain from just voting 'per nom' or via a previous complaint, especially considering the nomination only mentioned noteability and it was shown that Precedence gave this holiday noteability. AfD is NOT a voting system, it is NOT a democracy, it doesnt really matter if you agree with someone but cant bring anything new to the table. Trjn 07:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly with the above.  While you are correct that this is not a vote, the whole point is to reach a consensus.  Consensus means general agreement or unanimity.  What better way to form consensus than to have people say they agree with the original proposition?  Are you suggesting that if people agree completely with the nomination that they just don't add their voice at all?  -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is not a vote, then why would you want people to come into the talk and then vote and add nothing new? The decision should be heavily influenced by the argument within the topic itself, if someone wishes to counterargue any point then that is fantastic and is heavily encouraged. Voting, and 'reaching a consensus' is foolish, you cannot reach a consensus with only the parties who are interested to vote, or the odd person who stumbles across the VfD to vote. The only way to reach one would be to poll a large group outside the influence of Wikipedia after they read the article. The point of this is to see if the article is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, if it meets the standards or notability, not if people think it should be in or not. -Trjn 15:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * "Per nom" means that they agree with the nom, so it is expressing their opinion, not just voting. --Rory096 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth clarifying what not voting means. In a vote, there are strict rules about who is eligible to vote, and if you meet those eligibility requirements, your vote gets counted.  Add up all the votes, and whichever side comes out with a bigger sum wins.  With the system we have here, whoever closes the discussion has a lot of flexibility to decide which votes count and which don't (i.e. sockpuppets), and then apply some judgement as to whether consensus has been reached without being bound by some strict and exact numerical threshold.  If twenty people write nothing more than Delete per nom and two people write long cogent essays on why the article should be keep, that's still a consensus to delete (assuming no sockpuppetry or the like).  -- RoySmith (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is, everyone is agreeing to a nomination that has been shown to be in-large false. There have been plenty of arguments that the article is notable, and the Precedence/Radio Stations with a license are noteable is almost definitive combined with the addition of other articles and agurments, so their votes are more or less void of substance, and there are a large number of votes based from an invalid argument. Trjn 02:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I just noticed that the nom itself contains what I consider to be an inaccurate statement, to wit, "A day made up by one radio guy is not notable." Well, Administrative Professionals' Day was made up by one advertising guy, and rather than try to get it deleted, people who disagree the holiday exists have put in a reference to it being a Hallmark holiday.  Since a holiday that discourages the use of greeting cards can't be a Hallmark holiday, maybe the deleters would be better served by adding a section like "Some feel this holiday doesn't actually exist and was only meant as a joke."  So far the arguments against notability are: (a) coined by one guy for self-promotion (countered by Sadie Hawkins Day and Administrative Professionals Day, each of which was coined by one guy), (b) not actually celebrated by anyone (a trap, really, because celebrating it apparently makes me ineligible to oppose its deletion according to one deleter), (c) intended as a joke (again, Sadie Hawkins Day was plainly meant as a joke originally, as is Talk like a Pirate Day.)  Any other arguments? Raindog469 18:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ill say it again, there is a clear Precedence that Radio Stations with a license are noteable, which heavily supports the case that a large radio event by a noteable radio station should be noteable by inheritence and consumer/community celebration, which of course there is. Trjn 02:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That the station itself is notable doesn't imply everything done by every employee of that station is notable as well.  As for Administrative Professionals' Day, it at least has going for it in the notability department that it's been around in one form or another since 1952, and was proclaimed by U.S. Secretary of Commerce.  When the Secretary of Commerce proclaims Steak and Blowjob Day is a national holiday, I'll stand up and salute. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Clear delete. The article is citing *dead links* - that was a red flag for me right away.  And then looking at the Google hits, there's just over five hundred unique non-Wikipedia hits, and they look to be just blogs and forum posts and stuch. ENpeeOHvee 04:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.please keeep this page!!!. I wan't S 'n' BJ day to become a custom in other coutrie - we have to spread the word. if you still want to delete it you should delete the page about valentines day as well (Vote placed at 21:22, 11 June 2006 by 83.18.169.203. The vote was in mistake added to the first nomination during the third one)
 * It is explicitly NOT Wikipedia's place to spread the word. Our job is to document, not promote.  -- RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I used to vote keep on this article, but I'm getting tired. I've lost my will to edit this article and also to vote for keep. I count myself as an inclusionist, but on this front I publicly give up. Just go ahead and place the article in AFD until it gets deleted. --Easyas12c 20:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it does look like even if the article is kept this time, someone else will just nominate it for AFD again in a couple weeks. Shame that its deletion will set a precedent so that when its popularity continues to grow the deleters can then cite "recreation of deleted page" as a reason for continued deletion. Raindog469 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Does this film count as a minor proof of notability? http://foundrymusic.inadult.com/details.link/tid/870053/dvd/Steak-and-Blowjob-Day.htm --Easyas12c 20:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I get the impression you'd need to create an entry for that film itself first (not so many porno compilations on WP that I've noticed) and defend its notability. Raindog469 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment the are selling merchandise for this day www.cafepress.com/steakandbjday and with all of the hits. I think it has to stay for notability. --Kev62nesl 06:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. As for saying that the event is notable because it was a major event created by a radio station and radio stations are notable, that could easily become the beginning of a slippery slope of similar arguments - association with notability is not enough to create notability in itself, and even then doesn't necessarily imply enough notability to have its own article. Confusing Manifestation 15:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, clearly not notable. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjo e  02:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Created by something "notable =/= something notable. And if this article is the #1 hit on Google, then that's a bad sign -- it means other sites (i.e., independent and reliable sources) are lacking, allowing this article to bubble to the top of the results list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calton (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, imaginary holiday made up by a radio personality. Conferred notability is a non-existent concept in my opinion and looking at this on its own merits it simply is not well known enough to merit an article.--Isotope23 20:08, 13 June 2006 (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.