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 Keep. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Surfing Day[edit]

International Surfing Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nom - Lacks notability or sources indicating notability. This article has been speedied once before, so it belongs in AfD now. Rklawton (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, even the nom just wants to merge now. No delete opinions anywhere, let's close this. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please don't be so combative to a perfectly legitimate motion. i suggested the closure since there seemed to be near unanimous consensus and every delete vote but the nominators was changed to keep.Myheartinchile (talk) 03:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ok... Let's all keep cool. The facts speak for themselves on either side, there's no need to get mad. --Explodicle (T/C) 04:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FTR i'm not mad.Myheartinchile (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose merge merge where? merge with what?Myheartinchile (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the suggestion was The Surfrider Foundation. --Explodicle (T/C) 04:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
that would be inadequate since the holiday is separate and most celebrations are unrelated to the group.Myheartinchile (talk) 05:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Lacks notability? I wouldn't wave so much in me not knowing such an event. A private man not knowing something doesn't make it un-notable. It's very known and notable. Log in, log out (talk) 09:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, what do you mean?Myheartinchile (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What i mean is that this topic is notable, that day is a famous event, and it should be keept. Log in, log out (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement review - The above editor has made a laudable effort to illustrate the subject's notability by adding many new sources. Now, let's take a look at these sources individually and continue the discussion anew:

  1. - Indicates that this is not an official holiday. It was created by "Surfing Magazine" as a self-promotion.[1]
  2. - Is a press release and does not qualify as a reliable source [2]
  3. - Is from a blog and again fails as a reliable source. [3]
  4. - A local paper (only) indicating that this "holiday" has just entered its fourth year - hardly time to gain sufficient notability[4]
  5. - This source comes from a local paper promoting a local event. [5]
  6. - Is another press release (if I issue enough press releases, do I get my own holiday, too?)[6]
  7. - Highlights a local event [7]
  8. - Very short article about a local event from local paper with unsupported claims for an "international" event[8]
  9. - Local paper/article about Surfrider - makes me think this article could be merged with the Surfrider article since all the local articles so far revolve around Surfrider-organized beach cleaning activities[9]
  10. - An article about something else with only a passing mention about ISD[10]
  11. - The short article comes from an online magazine currently in its 5th issue.[11]

What this article needs are *reliable* sources that contain information within them that satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. That's not what we're seeing with the sources provided. A few beach cleanups sponsored by the "Surfrider" organization says more about the organization than it does the "holiday". Therefore I propose moving salvageable material to the "Surfrider" article and deleting this one unless or until it actually grows some legs. Rklawton (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out a few "bad" references does not invalidate the large amount of reliable sources and non-trivial media coverage, i have however added more references, as for refs that verify but don't assert notability, they are essential and absolutely allowable for the purpose of filler.Myheartinchile (talk) 03:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems kind of a stretch to discredit press releases and local news as reliable sources. ISD might be new and it might be a Hallmark holiday, but if we've got the right sources and a willing editor that's no reason to delete. I wouldn't be opposed to a merger, though. At worst, we should redirect while retaining the edit history. --E x p l o d i c l eTC 14:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - Press releases are absolutely not reliable. Local news may well be reliable but should not serve as indicators of notability. Verifying that something exists to some small extent is just not sufficient. However, I like your recommendations. Rklawton (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My first choice is still that we keep. Those local news articles are independent, secondary sources that address the subject directly in detail, which appears to conform with WP:N. Is there a consensus against local news that I'm not aware of? --Explodicle (T/C) 02:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such concensus that I know of. Upon reading these (relatively few) local articles, it's clear they are more about beach cleanup and surfriders - hence my recommendation to merge. Note also that with a Google search on News, it's pretty clear that the few local articles added to this article are pretty much ALL there is for coverage of this event. This makes it pretty clear that it's not sufficiently notable to stand on its own. Rklawton (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
please read WP:N this article clearly has many reliable secondary sources, sources mind you that it has gotten significant coverage in these sources and that coverage must not be exclusive to be significant. Furthermore the articles don't cover beach clean up and surfriders, the common subject is beach clean up on international surf day because of the holiday and because of surfrider. There is coverage in Argentinian press, mexican press, australian press, american press in several states just to start with, so that is beyond local. Significant coverage establishes notability and consensus establishes that this is enough to merit an individual article.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Each of those articles has Surfrider in common. Rklawton (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahhh, but then by that logic the article on the Exxon Valdez oil spill would be posted solely under Exxon and Lance Armstrong would be posted under the Tour de France. Yes, the Surfrider Foundation plays a significant role in International Surfing Day. However the event itself is much, much larger and inclusive of the surfing community as a whole. Matty3121 (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and that someone invalidadtes their integrity? the articles only mention surfrider in passing and are not afiliated.Myheartinchile (talk) 05:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although this event definitely has commercial roots, it appears to have become a major cultural event within the sport of surfing as evidenced by its wide international observance and appearances in multiple media outlets beyond "Surfing Magazine". Although lacking the long history of such events as Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, this article is similar to such already approved articles in that it is a holiday event with commercially driven motives.Nrswanson (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can make all the motions you want, but we still don't vote; an uninvolved third party would have to decide if this is a snowball keep. Why the rush, anyways? --Explodicle (T/C) 13:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just made two. I wanna rush it so this article can be featured on WP:DYK before its too late.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - If the event is much larger than Surfrider, prove it with reliable sources demonstrating that it goes far beyond Surfrider (as you say). Otherwise, merge with Surfrider. Rklawton (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its been done already, you're just being recalcitrant now.70.1.45.212 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2008 (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.
More