Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous People with holidays

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. I believe there is sufficient consensus now demonstrated. Clarityfiend has also made various changes to narrow the notability and inclusion issues. I'm going to rename List of holidays honouring individuals - two renames were suggested and this seems the narrower. If editors want to rename to PamD's proposal, that's obviously cool. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Famous People with holidays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

An incomplete list, with many of the mentioned holidays being virtually unknown. There would be thousands of people around the world with their own named days, documenting it all in a wikipage will result in a very long incomplete page. We would also need criteria and all, but this page just randomly has names that the author knows(like pewdiepie day). There would certainly be some criteria by which these types of pages should be deleted. Daiyusha (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename List of holidays honoring individuals, but keep only officially recognized and lasting days (i.e. not one-offs). That'll get rid of most of the entries. Also strike Christmas. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Show me the WP:GNG and I'll even consider. But see Clarityfiend's comment which suggests nightmarish difficulties with inclusion criteria. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as one big WP:OR mess. A large number of these days just link the persons name and don't even make any claim to an official holiday named after them. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as Clarityfiend says, there could be a List of holidays commemorating individuals (hmm, or just "days" as not all commemorative days are actual holidays), but to be at all useful and encyclopedic it would need to link to articles/sections about the holidays (not just the people), say where observed, show the dates, include sources. This is so far off from that model that deletion seems the best choice right now. PamD 22:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I've overhauled the list to include only articled and officially sanctioned days. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep after Clarityfiend's work - but there's more to be done, see my comments on talk page. Possibly needs to be renamed to List of holidays and annual celebrations named after individuals, with some sort of rubric which excludes routine saints' days which are not official holidays anywhere, and firm scope rules which can allow Burns Night but filter out the non-notable and one-off. Tricky but do-able. PamD 08:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unexpectedly; this is something I would have thought already existed, but doesn't. We have plenty of holiday categories, but no one category or list that covers this particular aspect. Definitely rename. PamD and Clarityfiend seem to have workable scope & criteria ideas. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Being a long list or incomplete one is not a valid reason for deletion. Perfectly valid list article, just rename it as suggested. Dream Focus 23:58, 16 March 2019 (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.