Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck The Earth Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fuck The Earth Day

Fuck The Earth Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete. A seemingly non-notable holiday. No reliabe sources are given (and I can't see the Facebook page), and good ol' Google gives 13 results. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Please do not delete this article. I do celebrate this holiday, as do others. You cannot judge this holiday based on the number of hits google comes up with. If you do not know about this holiday, you cant tell people who do celebrate it that it doesn't exist. If you celebrate this holiday, please help us make a good article about it, if you dont, please stop telling us that it doesn't exist just because the people who celebrate it dont post lots of websites about it. QuintusMaximus 09:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)QuintusMaximus
  • You do not celebrate this holiday, as it's never happened before. You may very well celebrate it this year, but that is future tense. If it becomes notable after the fact, write an article, but it clearly doesn't meet the notability guidelines at present. Nathanm mn 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
In order to keep this article on Wikipedia, you have to provide reliable sources to prove that it exists. The burden of proof is on you to show that the holiday exists, not on others to show it doesn't. Hut 8.5 14:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand, but IMO we have proved it, go to the discussion page of the article, I've posted a link to our reference where it was announded on national TV. People keep ignoring this source. If in the end, it is decided that this should not be on wikipedia, i guess that is what has to happen, but please dont ignore our source first... -- QuintusMaximus 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The "announcement" is a joke, as I'm sure you realise. Your article is not about the joke holiday, it is about a real one, which either doesn't exist or isn't notable. The fact that this is transwikied from Uncyclopedia suggests this isn't serious. Hut 8.5 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. 'Talk like a Pirate Day', which I notice does have an article here on Wikipedia, was also made up one day. It does not, as far as I can tell, have any importance whatsoever. 'Fuck the Earth Day' is actually supposed to mean something, to be a statement about the Earth and its current condition. Dearingj 09:24, January 28 2007 (UTC)
  • However, International Talk Like a Pirate Day has gotten lots of national and international press, radio, and TV coverage; it's a part of a few video games; and it's been going on for a few years now. None of those things can be said about this so-called holiday. Nathanm mn 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks, this is an important point i agree with. Fuck the Earth Day is part serious/part satire-ironic... It is however significant in the same way MANY other things on wikipedia are... QuintusMaximus 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Talk Like A Pirate Day, however, is well-sourced and has been widely written about. --UsaSatsui 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This was announced on national television! Seriously, that is pretty solid... QuintusMaximus 12:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Quintus, I try to understand the effort you put in FTE Day and the significance it may have for you, but have you ever read the policy about notability in Wikipedia? For instance the fact that a topic is considered notable, and so suitable to be included, "if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject itself and each other"? We are not questioning FTE Day in itself (or perhaps someone has, but this is not the point). The fact is, something is notable (be it a song, a crime or an event) if it is widely known, referenced and studied. Give yourself and FTE Day time to grow and become renowned. --Goochelaar 12:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely understand where you are comming from, but i doubt that it is going to get more renound then it already is. To me, it seems like being mentioned on national television seems to qualify it as notable. I agree it is still a bit obscure, but there are many other more obscure articles on wikipedia. Why argue over this one when it HAS been mentioned on national television. Probably a few hundred thousand people heard it announced on the TV. It is true that probably reletivly few have taken it to heart, but there is a group. And since it was mentioned on comedy central, I think it is notable enough for wikipedia. IMO. -- QuintusMaximus 12:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Quintus, please, provide some references. Trying to argue in favor of it without providing evidence is futile, we need reliable sources for this. If you can't do this, I hate to say, it won't survive. --Dennisthe2 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, created in 2007, meaning it hasn't even happened yet one time. User:Zoe|(talk) 08:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Can I make up my own holiday on facebook and put it on Wikipedia too? janejellyroll 08:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:NFT. Part Deux 09:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —Brim 09:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, mirroring Part Deux, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school/college/wherever one day. Kyra~(talk) 09:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. Em-jay-es 09:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Transwikied to Uncyclopedia here. It's good stuff, actually.--Abs Like Jesus 09:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia is not paper. It's pretty clear to me that this is a real concept that was broadcasted on national television. It also clearly has intellectual merit and originality. The policies that have been cited by those arguing for deletion are not ends in themselves, so I encourage those voting for deletion to read "Wikipedia:Interpret all rules." The concern regarding inclusion is not that we don't have enough space, it's whether the ideas themselves are misleading or utterly worthless. Jimbo has admitted himself that storing data is very cheap.--Abs Like Jesus 09:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a real concept, it was a brief joke on a comedy newscast. How could anybody find intellectual merit and originality in that? I sincerely hope you're not being serious. Nathanm mn 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • gosh, and I thought it came from unencyclopedia. Part Deux 09:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I keep forgetting to reg there. You're going to have to copy&paste the article history if it's about to be deleted, otherwise your link to the article isn't enough under the GFDL (seeing as users can not click on it and see said history). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • By all means crosspost it whereever you want, i wont mind, but I really dont think its very respectful to delete our work on wikipedia..., so please consider this carfully and take off those tags at the top of the page... Thanks QuintusMaximus 09:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 09:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Alex Bakharev 09:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. DirtyJoe 09:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)— DirtyJoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Hmm since there seems to be some disagreement, maybe i should add a reason. I dont know anyone who celebrates this day, but I did see the episode of the Daily Show which they say inspired this holidy, and I must say i'm not surprised. If this really is a holiday with different people who observe it, i think it deserves a place here on wikipedia... DirtyJoe 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • But this isn't really a holiday that anybody observes. It was a joke on a comedy newscast. You know The Daily Show is satire, right? It's not supposed to be taken seriously. Nathanm mn 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:NOTABLE, WP:RS. A small group of friends does not make a holiday notable. Build up some notability, maybe by starting a popular and notable website (as occurred in the cases you folks keep giving), then try again after that. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, we're getting somewhere here: at least we know where this came from: it is indeed from the Daily Show: [1]. That being said, too bad. It's not notable yet. You can argue til your face turns blue, but until it becomes a widespread pheneomenon with reliable sources, you're outta luck. Part Deux 10:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You just sound like a real exclusionist, if it was announced on national television, it deserves a place on wikipedia! -- QuintusMaximus 12:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I said before, provide reliable sources and we'll change our minds. Just saying that it was announced on national television is not enough. What network/channel/country talked about it? Can you provide more than one source? --Dennisthe2 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, We have posted our source. It was on the daily show, on comedy central, in the USA. A link to a clip of that moment is now posted on the discussion page for this article. Please take a look. Here is a copy of the link i posted there [2] -- QuintusMaximus 23:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It was on The Daily Show... with all due respect, where is it documented that The Daily Show is even conceivably a reliable source?! Putting it on a comedy show doesn't make it notable - and that's pretty much what The Daily Show is. Be that as it may, I'm changing my vote - to Strong Delete with prejudice. PUt a fork in it, I'm done. --Dennisthe2 23:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Terence Ong 10:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per above (WP:NFT etc.). When it will be celebrated some times (say, at least once) and will get some renown, one will be glad to reconsider it. --Goochelaar 10:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I find it very hard to believe this is legit.--UsaSatsui 11:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as either a hoax or non-notable. Being mentioned in a TV comedy gag does not infer notability and does not mean the thing actually exists. Hut 8.5 13:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Neo-holiday.--Húsönd 17:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn neologism. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. 33 Google hits, all of which are trivial. Newly invented/neologism holiday. Michaelas10 (Talk) 18:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Even their Facebook group only has 2 members. If, after the event happens, it gets enough media attention and notoriety to meet Wikipedia notability criteria, then write an article. Nathanm mn 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No references. --Dennisthe2 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Vote changed to strong delete, see my commentary above. --Dennisthe2 00:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as unsourced, immature, nonnotable and offensive (the last of these is not a deletion rule, but I can't help throwing fuel on the fire). YechielMan 20:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per all above stupid up made event not funny guys or girls at allOo7565 21:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. Tom H 22:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NFT.-- danntm T C 22:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Clearly something made up by two people from facebook. Non-notable, because there's no actual holiday. Also quite stupid. Where exactly do they plan to live once earth is gone? --TommyOliver 22:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • This is only partly serious, but it *is* a real holiday, announced on national television, and being organized. It may be stupid in your opinion, but that doesn't detroy its merit to stay on wikipedia. -- QuintusMaximus 23:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Respectfully submitted, it is not a serious holiday. They know that they'd be screwed royally if the earth just up and left some day. If someday it becomes more than a facetious novelty, it can be on Wikipedia. But right now, it's just silly ^_^ --TommyOliver 23:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is NOT a real holiday. It was a one-off joke/comment on the Daily Show. Should we make Wikipedia articles for every sentence that comes out of Jon Stewart's mouth? That would be patently absurd. Go ahead, you and your friend celebrate the so-called "holiday." If you can manage to get some press, or even start a sizable meme in the blogosphere, then it might be considered for an article after the fact. But Wikipedia isn't meant to be an advertisement for college parties. Linking to the article from your Facebook group hasn't helped its legitimacy there either. As of today, they added one whole group member! As I posted before, strong, STRONG delete.Nathanm mn 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Stong delete - unsourced nonsense. – Tivedshambo (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - as amusing as I find this, it seems to be nonsense-DESU 23:11, 28 January 2007(UTC)
  • Comment: Thank you. We need the earth ^_^ Earth = Good --TommyOliver 01:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah... It was a joke... Not a joke article, it really is a holiday, but the holiday itself is a joke, We dont really hate the earth. We are simply poking fun at earth day by listing our disapointments with the earth instead :). Its too bad people cant respect this, but whatever. QuintusMaximus 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, i understand, but it wasn't just made up one day, it was on television, and then has been discussed for a long time, I just thought i would start the wikipedia aritcle, but whatever... i wont argue further... QuintusMaximus 02:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it was indeed on TV. On The Daily Show. The Daily Show is like the Weekend Update from SNL for an entire time slot. --Dennisthe2 03:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not for crap made up on Facebook one day to get attention via mini-feed and show everyone how hardcore of an earth-hater you are. Milto LOL pia 03:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per above and per norm. I personally cannot find the humor inherent in Jon Stewart, or Stephen Colbert for that matter. They are sensationalistic at best. Not to mention the fact that this holiday as it is now came from a facebook group. The site that brought us "If 5,000 people join this group, I will eat a pinecone" and other such nonsense. Stick a fork in this article and sound the dinner bell. --HubHikari 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Added References!-- I have added some references to the history portion of the article. And I have removed all the unverifiable portions, mostly from the "Observance" section. I really dont see what would keep it from being an article now. It is sourced, short, relevant, unique, factual, and notable. Dispite your personal views as to the quality of the humor, this IS a worthy page. -- QuintusMaximus 19:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, your references include:
  • A Facebook group you created, which still has all of 3 members, and is only accessible by members.
  • The relevant quote from The Daily Show, "...Because at this moment, I'm declaring april 25th, f*** the earth day!" It was only added January 24th, just a few days ago.
  • Links to two copies of the same clip from The Daily Show, which are obviously copyright violations.
How does that make the article notable? Nathanm mn 19:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You haven't addressed the fundamental problem that we have with this page - namely that this holiday isn't notable or is a hoax. Facebook pages don't count as reliable sources and your other sources only say that it was mentioned in one TV gag, which hardly makes it notable - you want articles on every line in every TV show? Hut 8.5 19:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It should be noted that used apparently sent out an email blitz to self-identified inclusionists. That is, I got one, although I don't ever remember supporting an article where mere existence can only be established via primary and/or unreliable sources. I believe in keeping meritorious articles, but WP:RS is very important to me. Make an article about it after it becomes Festivus. Until then Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thanks. 21:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly non-notable NBeale 22:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How about a study in contrast with another "holiday" or more accurately, a day of observance. Monday, January 29, 2007, was prounounced Milton Friedman Day[3], after the Nobel Laureate economist. It's even been officially declared by the governor of the state of California and the mayors of the cities of San Francisco and Chicago, and is being sponsored in part by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and The Economist magazine[4]. There are at least 20 different events, in 12 different cities, in 2 different countries being held, and a new documentary being premiered on PBS[5]. Yet despite all that, it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article, and probably shouldn't. Instead, a single sentence was added to the Milton Friedman article. Please consider this when thinking about the so-called holiday in question here. Nathanm mn 05:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Tack on the observance of Richard Nixon Day, as observed in Yorba Linda, California every year on July 19th in the following fashion: "carry on as if it were any other day". Just as notable. --Dennisthe2 09:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah... I think perhaps this debate really just comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion regarding what should be included in wikipedia... We aren't dealing with an encyclopedia that needs to be printed, articles take up a few Kb at most and as long as they are verrified, add to the wealth of knowlege wikipedia has to offer... -- QuintusMaximus 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Except the article in question adds nothing to the wealth of knowlege [sic]. In fact, it detracts from Wikipedia. How can it be verrified [sic] before it's even happened? If, after the fact, you and your friend manage to get any publicity, then it can be considered for an article. As it stands, it's just a poor advertisement for your non-event. Nathanm mn 02:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • How do your comments help Wikipedia? And how does this article hurt it? It states clearly what it is, and Wikipedia's size is nearly unlimited (per Jimbo). He's trying to help the project, and quite frankly, I think you ought to read Wikipedia:Civility before you blurt out whatever stray thought you have in your mind. If this were your article, you'd be stumbling over yourself trying to keep it. He spent hours writing it. If you had spent more of your time expanding articles, Wikipedia would be better off.--Abs Like Jesus 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please refer to WP:ILIKEIT, and note that articles about bopkes are more harmful than they appear to be. --Dennisthe2 03:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- at 43 ghits, including this debate, it is absolutely not notable. Parody holidays can get articles once they become well-known and covered by reliable published sources. Antandrus (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to note: it is going up since the afd started. 13 at first, 33 above, now 43. If John Stewart actually plays this enough, it might become notable. But not yet. :) Part Deux 11:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And not necessarily this variant either, as while it's based on the joke, it is also largely the creation of two "founders". The hits are largely for the joke (and a fair part of them seem to be TV show synopsis sites and Wikipedia mirrors), not this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Clearly not notable. --Tail 12:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete no references LazyDaisy 13:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, something recently made up. No reliable sources or notability. Dragomiloff 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable - AFTER it happens, we can think about a page for it. Before is presumptuous. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Delete TOMMAROW is Maverick423 day! Im ganna celebrate by sitting around and playing games on the computer! (after work of course) Then on April 23 is Maverick423's Birthday YAY im ganna celebrate it and so is my family and some friends. So lets write a article about Maverick423's holidays yes?... i thought so Maverick423 18:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong delete. Article is very POV (calls Earth Day "superfluous," for example) and seems to be chock-full of original research. "References" are completely non-reliable. Fails every standard of notability. Wikipedia is not Myspace. - Chardish 08:38, 2 February 2007 (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.