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 userfy for now. If and when additional sources are available, the page may be moved back into article space. As it stands, it appears to have only been the subject of a single newspaper article, which is not enough for the 'significant coverage' threshold. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Be a Gentleman day

[edit]

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

Non-notable "event" lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:N. ttonyb (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Google is not the arbiter of notability. The Sydney Sun Herald seems to consider it worthy of mention and, as previously discussed on the article's talk: page, there are a number of other media mentions. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No one says that Google is the final statement in notability; however, each article must provide adequate reliable sources. A single local article is, simple put, trivial in nature. The article lacks the reliable sources needed to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment - There are hundreds of similar made-up "days" and "weeks" and "months" like this which are given passing mention in the periodical press. Not everything can be an International Talk Like a Pirate Day, however... Delete without prejudice against recreation in the event that this "day" gains traction and becomes noteworthy in the future. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original editor is still at work on this article fixing a content flag. That's a good thing, with implications for me and for us under DON'TBITE, in my opinion. I'm not sure whether this article is really worthy of inclusion, but it's got at least some sourcing. Maybe this is a "keep and improve" situation. Delete vote stricken, now no opinion. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2011 (UTC)Last edited: Carrite (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments and the consideration - as a point of interest an interview and photo shoot has just been completed for inclusion into Woman's Day (second largest magazine in Australia with a readership of over 2 million), the article is on the creation of International Be a Gentleman day - the issue is due in a couple of weeks. I would be keen on feedback on how to improve the listing. (User talk:Pweeta)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Per Andy Dingley, Gnews is no real indicator of non-notability or notability. I choose to believe notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No one says that Google is the final statement of notability; however, each article must provide adequate reliable sources. A single local article is, simple put, trivial in nature. The article lacks the reliable sources needed to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with you. Gnews is no indicator at all of notability and cant be used to claim delete or keep for that matter.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I suggest you reread my comment and tell me where I said that. I said, "each article must provide adequate reliable sources" to establish notability. Rather than misquote me, I sugget you focus on issue at hand, the lack of reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 15:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for the time being. If an when the promised Woman's Day feature comes out, that'll be different. As it stands, we have one article in the Sydney paper. The other refs are blogs and don't count.

The article Woman's Day (Australian magazine) says that it's the 2nd-largest mag in Oz. If that's true (there's no ref given) then it's major media. I don't think WP:GNG says anything like this, but as a rule of thumb, I think that one article in a major paper (or mag) is not enough, but if you have two, that's another story. Unfortunately, we probably really can't keep the article on the promise of the Woman's Day article - they might well decide to kill it or whatever. So userfy, to be returned to mainspace when it has more support. Herostratus (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The refs listed on the article at present might be mostly blogs, but those listed on the website's "in the media" page are more than this. In particular, they have articles in both the Sydney Herald and the Brisbane times. Both of these are (AFAIK) sizable newspapers and although one of them might be discounted as "local", if two cities' newspapers are both picking up on it, then that's more than local coverage. Especially in Australia, where cities are hardly adjacent. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 6 April 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.