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. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:03, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bonfire Night[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page was originally a disambiguation page. The article content was controversially converted into an article with this edit by Nikkimaria. After discussion failed to produce any support for having an article instead of a disambiguation page (see Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation)), Nikkimaria moved the disambiguation page to Bonfire Night (disambiguation) and copied and pasted the article content back to this page. The reason for deletion is that there is nothing that unifies the events covered on this page other than that they coincidentally all feature the use of bonfires. Other than that coincidental feature, there is nothing that connects the events. In essence this page is nothing more than disambiguation in prose with additional content that either duplicates information at other article or is tangential (i.e., the criticism of the English Bonfire Night for the environmental impact). This article should be deleted and the disambiguation page returned to this page. older ≠ wiser 14:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I think it might also be acceptable to have this title Bonfire Night be a redirect to Guy Fawkes Night as the primary topic for the term with a hatnote from there to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 14:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bkonrad is mischaracterizing the article's history and the discussion, which is to be expected given his partisan stance. In any event, Guy Fawkes Night is not the primary topic - Bonfire Night is, and the suggested redirect would be inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm suggesting is that the current article should be deleted. If that is successful, then either the disambiguation page be moved to the title or it might also be redirected to Guy Fawkes Night, as there is a good case for that being the primary topic for the term. But that determination of primary topic need not be conflated with this, which is only concerned with whether the current article should be deleted. The current article is little more than disambiguation in prose with some duplicated and tangential content thrown in to make it look like more than what it is. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bonfire. These fires only seem to happen at night. Hence no difference between a bonfire and a bonfire night. And each notable yearly bonfire event can have its own page.BigJim707 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that bonfires are sometimes also seen during the day, e.g. for disposing of rubbish. This probably happens less than it used to, but it does still occur in Britain. --Trevj (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As previously suggested, Bonfire Night could be moved to Bonfire Night (general celebrations) or similar. I think the idea of Bonfire Night redirecting to Guy Fawkes Night wouldn't be inappropriate. Alternatively, moving Guy Fawkes Night to Bonfire Night would mean the current contents of the latter could reasonably be included within the article text of the former. I recently replaced a number of inbound links pointing to Bonfire Night with Guy Fawkes Night (where appropriate). This is because I felt that it was unhelpful for users to click on Bonfire Night and end up at the general page, when Guy Fawkes Night is what was meant in the context of the referring article. For a handful of articles, the general page or the disambiguation page seem to remain appropriate. But the vast majority of inbound links were referring to Guy Fawkes Night. --Trevj (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"[...] end up at the general page [...]" (or the dab page) --Trevj (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article, so most certainly should not be moved without a discussion there. Furthermore, that page deals mostly with the historical Guy Fawkes Night, not the present-day Bonfire Night celebrations. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after merging any useful facts into the various parent articles and then move Bonfire Night (disambiguation) back to Bonfire Night. See my comment on 29 March 2011 at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation) for further details of why I think this the best solution. -- PBS (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article seems to be developing well, providing good information on the topic. There is scope for further development based on sources such as this which explains the evolution of the festival from Samhain - a celebration which long predates Guy Fawkes and in which bones were burnt - hence the name bonfire. The OED tells us that "on certain anniversaries, esp. on the eves of St. John and St. Peter (cf. French feu de la Saint-Jean, German Johannis feuer, and bale-fire n.). These were originally bone-fires in sense 1 (where cf. quot. 1493), and appear to have come down from heathen times.". There's perhaps a case for merger with bonfire but that will not be done by deletion. Warden (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any material worth keeping into the appropriate articles. As I said at Talk:Bonfire Night (disambiguation) (which was previously Talk:Bonfire Night), there is no "general tradition of Bonfire Nights", so an article for such a general tradition is a non-event. There are several different traditions around the world which have bonfires in common, and that creates a need for a disambiguation page, but it does not justify an article about an imaginary subject. Per PBS, after the merge Bonfire Night (disambiguation) should be moved back to Bonfire Night. Moonraker (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete existing content in Bonfire Night. Merge that content (specifically JHunterJ's revision of 'Bonfire Night (disambiguation)' of 14:14, 21 June 2011, in order to preserve attribution per WP:CWW) into Bonfire#Celebratory bonfires. Other edits to the current Bonfire Night may require their histories merging. The current content cannot reasonably be considered to be the primary topic, evidenced by the previously highlighted number of inbound links related to Guy Fawkes Night. Therefore, the contents of Bonfire Night should either be the dab page itself or a redirect to Guy Fawkes Night. Additionally, the dab page could include a replacement of 'Bonfire Night, several traditions of bonfire celebrations' with 'The night of a celebratory bonfire' --Trevj (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read some of the further coments below, I propose that if Bonfire Night is redirected to Guy Fawkes Night, a ((Redirect)) hatnote should be included so the dab page can easily be reached for those not looking fot the UK term. WP:COMMONNAME means that Bonfire Night shouldn't necessarily hold the contents of Guy Fawkes Night for readers outside of the UK/Commonwealth. However, it would be interesting to know what US and Canadian people think we call our 5th Nov celebrations! How do we determine what is the common name elsewhere for celebrations specific to certain countries? --Trevj (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm Canadian and I thought you called it "Guy Fawkes Day". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I think that's probably right (for the day itself), although my current diary doesn't even list it as a notable date. Anyway, we certainly don't say "Bonfire Day"! However, the nighttime celebrations are generally referred to as "Bonfire Night" here. These ESOL refs [1], [2] aren't consistent and this tourism site uses both terms. This French teaching site refers to 'GUY FAWKES' DAY - BONFIRE NIGHT'. Here are a couple of Find sources notices:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A quick glance shows that former shows more UK refs than the latter. It would be interesting to analyse this further. --Trevj (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It would be entirely inappropriate to have this article redirect to Guy Fawkes Night, as that's just one of the annual Bonfire Night events around the world. Malleus Fatuorum 14:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge text at Bonfire#Celebratory bonfires into this article (retaining short article at Bonfire), adding ((main)) tags as necessary (linking to Guy Fawkes Night and others), and rename this article as Bonfire celebrations (with redirect from Bonfire Night). Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a term, Bonfire Night as a celebratory festival is very well known in Britain, and a more widely recognised term than Guy Fawks Night in primary schools (eg: here, here, here and here). Therefore it is a distinctly notable term in its own right. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this article is supposedly about the several diverse events in various nations that happen to feature bonfires and are sometimes called "Bonfire Night", not specifically about any one particular celebration. older ≠ wiser 15:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I see no problem with an article which attempts to explain the various Bonfire Night traditions, as celebrated in different cultures around the world. The article could stand to be improved, making clear that Bonfire Night is just a common term. There probably isn't a great deal to say about each tradition individually anyway. Parrot of Doom 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But there already are several articles about the different traditions!!!!! There is NOTHING in common between them other than the coincidental use of a bonfire. That it no basis for an encyclopedic article. older ≠ wiser 16:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and they're mostly rubbish. Perhaps instead of proposing the deletion of articles you feel aren't necessary, you should bolster your case by improving the ones you think are? Parrot of Doom 17:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you have a very different perspective on what is rubbish than most. Of the articles currently on Bonfire Night (disambiguation), there is only one that qualifies as rubbish and that is the one being discussed for deletion. Of the others, Guy Fawkes Night is a featured article. Samhain, St John's Eve, Eleventh Night, and Queen's Official Birthday all seem pretty decent. Perhaps instead of merely voting to keep rubbish that has no hope for being developed into an encyclopedic article, you might spend some time proving me wrong and actually improving it. older ≠ wiser 18:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only obvious thing here is that you don't really know what you're talking about. I have no desire to prove anything to anyone, I've already done more than enough on bonfire-related topics. Not that you'd know. Parrot of Doom 19:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made a claim, and it's pretty obvious to most anyone who looks which articles are rubbish and which aren't. If you're not interested in proving me wrong about the lack of potential for this article, then perhaps you shouldn't be making spurious claims about the quality. older ≠ wiser 19:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be obvious to you. Do you really think that St John's Eve is "pretty decent"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, yes. Is it featured article (or even good article) quality, no. Could it benefit from some editing, of course. Is it "rubbish". Certainly not. older ≠ wiser 19:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The St John's Eve article I'm looking at is a stub that's been flagged as needing cleanup for almost three years. Which one are you looking at? Malleus Fatuorum 19:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stub by any reasonable standard. Needing cleanup is not the same as "rubbish". older ≠ wiser 20:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is all yours; it's tagged as a stub and it is rubbish. Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of us certainly is. There is no visible stub tag on St John's Eve. If you're talking about the rating on the talk page, that is distinct from the WP:Stub project. It is an illustration of the weakness of the project-specific talk page rating systems (i.e., most of the ratings are subjective and unreviewed). As for being rubbish, I suppose you're entitled to your opinion, though I think it is a pretty irrational standard. Rubbish is refuse to be ejected from the corpus of Wiktionary as unnacceptable. I read the article and learned something and even found it interesting. Could it be improved, of course. But once again, is it "rubbish"? Most definitely not. older ≠ wiser 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled as to how you can be quite so definitive, when the "pretty decent" article carries only a single citation. If your opinion is representative of Wikipedia as a whole (as you seem to imply above) then there really is no hope for this project. Parrot of Doom 20:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing puzzling at all. The article contains several external links, which while not reliable sources, were apparently used by the author as general references and do clearly indicate the notability of the subject. For the most part nothing in the article appears egregiously bad or erroneous. Of course, as I know nothing about the subject previously, I suppose it is possible that the article and the diverse web sites are some sort of elaborate fraud, but I doubt it. What is it specifically, other than the poor citation style, that you find objectionable about the article? older ≠ wiser 20:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to point out to you exactly why that article is crap, but not here; this AfD is about Bonfire Night. Malleus Fatuorum 22:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps you might elaborate on why you think this crap (which is essentially nothing but disambiguation in prose with some duplicated and tangential content thrown in) is worth keeping. There is no pan-cultural general concept of a "Bonfire Night" to be written about in an encylopedic manner, as far as I can tell. I've asked to be shown evidence to the contrary, but none has been forthcoming. older ≠ wiser 22:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clear given the above that your view is essentially worthless. Good day. Parrot of Doom 23:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you're such a thoughtful and considerate editor. thanks for spreading the Wikilove. older ≠ wiser 23:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, older ≠ wiser, you have the best of the discussion. Moonraker (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not appropriate to merge this subject with Guy Fawkes Night.(Hugh 22:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC))--Hugh 22:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete - I don't see this as an article topic although individual celebrations should and do have their own article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - though this article is in need of further improvement (as are most on Wikipedia), it is a viable article in its own right. Content related to environmental and social concerns is common to these traditions and is certainly not "tangential", as was argued above. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bizzare. Pretty bizzare situation, this is a huge celebration in the UK but the proper content is at Guy Fawkes Night. Guy Fawkes Night is the much lesser used term for this celebration. This should definitely Not be deleted nor a disambiguation page. The content at Guy Fawkes Night should be moved to Bonfire Night. Szzuk (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Bonfire Night article could be improved but that isn't unusual. Links could be made to other bonfire celebrations. Should most definately not be merged with Guy Fawkes Night.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge? The first sentence of the Guy Fawkes Night article includes - also known as Bonfire Night. I'm sure many people who go to bonfire night don't even know who Guy Fawkes is. If you want the content kept fair enough, it could go somewhere else. However when someone types Bonfire Night into the search box they're expecting the Guy Fawkes Night article. Szzuk (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Readers from the UK might expect that, but not necessarily those from elsewhere. Malleus Fatuorum 22:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK bonfire night is bigger than halloween, its not really celebrated much elsewhere, in the british commonwealth a tiny bit. The click traffic is going to be 80% british looking for the guy fawkes night article, 10% non British looking for guy fawkes night article, 10% everything else. The guy fawkes night article has 400,000 views per year so there are a lot of click throughs which should be avoided. Szzuk (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It appears to be a notable social phenomena with potential for expansion. I'm unconvinced by arguments of the Merge and Delete !voters. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.