Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey 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 default to keep; non-admin closure. TonyBallioni 00:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monkey Day

Monkey Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Prior AfD was overturned at deletion review and referred back here to have a closer look at the provided sources. This is a procedural nomination, I have no opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep; Let the monkeys have their day! Although they haven't been added to the article yet, there are some reasonable sources listed in the DRV, so whatever I think of the article, this passes WP:N. Masaruemoto 05:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've added those references from the DRV to the article. Masaruemoto 05:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I'm confused what happened between August and October -- isn't there an unrestored version somewhere? I don't see what I voted on in the last AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 06:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - an event without any notability. I quote from one of their links "And, actually, it won’t be many humans and they won’t be spread very far around the globe. In fact, it might just be a couple of wacky art students in Lansing partying in someone’s basement." Come on people this does not begin to rate as notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC) (quoting User:Storm_Rider)
  • References:
    • A Toast to Bubbles - LA City Beat, an alternative weekly nespaper that uses Monkey Day as an excuse to create new drinks for their drinking issue
    • Monkey See, Monkey Doo - Denver Westword, an alternative weekly nespaper
    • Monkeying Around with the holidays - Metro Times, an alternative weekly newspaper
    • 2 articles self-promoting Monkey Day from monkeydaycomics.blogspot.com
    • Holiday monkey business - A Canadian alternative paper
    • Financial Times of Deutschland
  • I don't see anything significant we can call notable, with the possible exception of the Financial Times, but it's a subscription feed and in German. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You are wrong that we can't call "notable" newspapers with circulations of 95,000-100,000 like Los Angeles CityBeat, Westword, and Metro Times. Looking at List_of_alternative_weekly_newspapers it seems pretty clear that there is a strong consensus that these and many other alternative weekly newspapers are considered notable. --Dragonfiend 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's irrelevant if the sources are notable anyway, as long as they are reliable. WP:RS makes no mention of using "notable" sources. Masaruemoto 02:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - This article is about 2 lines long, and is completely insignificant. So it should be removed. DarthSidious 10:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious
• Delete - This is non-notable. The referenced article in Los Angeles City Times is a self-listing forum that anybody can put their event in. Llajwa 22:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've removed that source now. There are still four other reliable sources that pass WP:RS. Masaruemoto 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I've restored that source. It only lists one event per day, so clearly one of the newspaper's editors is choosing which event to list, so no this newspaper is not a "self-listing forum that anybody can put their event in." --Dragonfiend 14:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Comment; Just to clarify what notability means, in Wikipedia terms, from Wikipedia:Notability; "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Significant coverage has been provided, a large article in Detroit Metro Times, another article in Canada's Hour Weekly, and some less significant coverage in Denver's Westword. It's interesting that none of the people saying "not notable" addressed the multiple reliable sources in the article. Masaruemoto 00:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non notable. There are 1 or 2 published sources thta discuss the monkey day but they completely confirm that monkey day is not "worthy of notice".Worldfamousdirector 02:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep appears to have somehow attracted some notice. JJL 02:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. A topic with multiple reliable sources across multiple years in multiple countries is notable. --Dragonfiend 14:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep -- The references provided in Monkey Day#References are sufficient to establish a presumption of the notability of this topic per Wikipedia's general notability guideline. The subjective assertion of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion is insufficient to outweigh this presumption. John254 18:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Why are we citing, repeatedly I might add, BLOGSPOT.COM AS A "RELIABLE SOURCE" IN THIS ARTICLE??? Burntsauce 16:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Per WP:RS "Self-published ... blogs [may] be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The blog of Monkey Day's founder may used as a reliable source since he is a recognized expert on Monkey Day. --Dragonfiend 00:13, 31 October 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.