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 merge‎ to Garfield. Daniel (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Stupid Day[edit]

National Stupid Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is a clear fail of WP:LASTING and WP:PERSISTENCE. All of the coverage is from the same 2 day interval on November 11-12 2010. No evidence of any lasting significance whatsoever, as has been noted by the creator at Talk:National_Stupid_Day. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would also be open to merging this article with the main Garfield article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Military, and United States of America. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I did have a good discussion about this here, so I'll spare everyone the trouble of a long-winded rant :) keep as a WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK#3 pass – WP:NEVENT doesn't apply. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:36, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The controversy surrounding the panel was an event, and a single comic panel out of an ongoing series doesn't qualify for NBOOK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I tend to feel that it's a stretch to say "this cartoon should have to pass NEVENT because the art was also covered in the context of the public reception it caused", but it's worth having an AfD to settle the question, if anything :) I could see this going either way, figured it was worth the write anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:58, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  oh, and good catch on NBOOK, Hemiauchenia – 'parently it doesn't apply to comic strips :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2023 (UTC) Merge to Garfield per RS found below and WP:NOPAGE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – it's still remarked on by RS today, see McCance, Rodney (2022). The Creation of Garfield. Pen and Sword. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How substantial is the coverage? If it's just a 1 sentence passing mention then I wouldn't consider it sigcov. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a few paragraphs, but most of that is a summary of the strip and Davis’s letter. The book itself is a history of Garfield and lists National Stupid Day as one of several “notable” strips. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Maddy from Celeste.★Trekker (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Garfield. I found a 2018 News18 article which has a paragraph about the strip controversy; I suspect I could probably drum up a few more post-November 2010 sources if I started cracking open databases. However, I ultimately think this article is much better covered within the context of the Garfield article. I've looked through the available sources and was unable to find any evidence of lasting impact; the 2022 Creation of Garfield Book outright states that the controversy resulted in "no long-term effects on Garfield." Several of the sources (including some summarized in the article) question whether there was really a controversy to begin with; the book states that things "blew over" after Davis's apology. Ultimately, this was a poorly timed strip that resulted in two days of media coverage and a handful of sporadic mentions in the years and decades after the strip ran; I think this information is best covered within the Garfield article rather than as a standalone article. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - It had 9,921 views while on the main page, which is pretty remarkable. The article is well-written, explanatory, and deserving of being a stand-alone article. And it already had all those nit-picking DYK editors looking at it from every angle before it went live on the Main Page. Let's loosen up, have some fun, and let this stay as its own article. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination), none of these reasons for keeping an article are valid. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And I reinforce my Strong Keep, whether any editor agrees or not, or whether anyone digs something to support their viewpoint. Bottom line ... if enough Keeps are here, it is unlikely to be deleted. — Maile (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Article views and the quality of the article are irrelevant; even articles that reach a milestone such as DYK can fail our general notability requirements. If you believe this article should be kept, then I encourage you to review WP:GNG and make an argument in line with that guideline. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Garfield - this strip was discussed at the time of publishing. If we look at the sources used in our article there are eight - but they are all basically the same coverage (they describe the cartoon controversy and print the apology). WP:ATD-M seems like a healthy compromise which preserves the material. I also checked WP:SIZESPLIT which states < 6,000 words < 40 kB Length alone does not justify division or trimming: the Garfield article (5,233 words) is not too long to accept this material. Lightburst (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. This was actually a full section on the Garfield article at one point until I reduced it to a portion of the History section. Then it was removed. Anyway, this really seems to be forgotten nowadays and thus fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. Contrast Cow Tools and Loss, both of which have been the subject of jokes years after their release. Right now, there's not much more to this comic than, say, the May 30, 1990 strip (which people also misinterpreted). -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Garfield. Agree with the nom's rationale and would lean delete, but as the strip was discussed at the time and caused some controversy, there is a case for a very short mention of it in the Garfield page. Also per Rainulator. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Garfield, it doesn't have WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Suonii180 (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2023 (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.