Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Worm 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 Delete -- JForget  00:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Worm day

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

Hoax. Prodded, but removed by creator. Even if such a day did exist, there's no assertion of notability. - Warthog Demon  18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Either a Hoax or something made up at work one day. Either way, does not meet WP:NPOV, V and OR. Double Blue  (Talk) 18:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) Delete. Not sure if it's a hoax, but it's almost certainly not notable and probably something made up in school one day.  Powers T 18:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete after a google search, the only thing I found with regards to worm day is "its windows release day!" therefore, there is no such day.  Furthermore, march 15 is from the play JC, and the article makes little mention of the link,.Thright (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just got my hands on some original Worm Day artwork, and will be uploading images that don't in themselves violate copyright. I'm also looking through online journal archives for an article in Worm Digest written in the early 2000s regarding an interview with Dr. Perry regarding worm day.  The correlation between Worm Day and Julius Caesar is purely coincidental, and was therefore not elaborated upon in the article.--Cosmoknot (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The artwork's cute, but this still violates WP:NFT. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It has been suggested that this is a hoax.  It might be, but I'll assume good faith for a moment and pretend that we all know it is a real event.  There is still no material presented in the article or available on Google to make the article verifiable, or to establish that it is notable.  In the absense of sources, this is all original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia.   A passage from the Wikipedia verifiability standards states "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."  I do understand that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and strict interpretation of the policies is not alwasys appropriate, but, in this case, the lack of available sources is pretty damning on the grounds of both WP:V and WP:N.  OlenWhitaker   • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --Allen3 talk 21:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. and OlenWhitaker  - probably not a hoax, but not notable. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Indeed, there are those who would consider the concept of the celebration "patent nonsense." Indeed. 86.133.214.243 (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Delete cute, but still junk. JuJube (talk) 09:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Scratch Geddit? (see re the discovery "Dr" Lee Perry) I kill me Plutonium27 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 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.