Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak and Blowjob Day (4th nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 as it seems to (unfortunately, IMO) meet WP:GNG. No opinion on a rename to Steak and Blowjob Day meme or a possible merge to Valentine's Day; those can be discussed further on the article talkpage. ansh666 20:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steak and Blowjob Day

AfDs for this article:
Steak and Blowjob Day (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)

Article's subject fails notability and article fails to meet reliable sources guidelines. Dictioneer (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Dictioneer (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Steak and Blowjob Day Meme , per SmokeyJoe in the recent DRV. In the alternative, I wouldn't be upset if it was deleted outright. There are no WP:RS which establish WP:V.
One WP:RS is Cosmopolitan, which doesn't state that it exists. The title of the article talks about Absolutely Horrible Jokes. The URL slug (which I assume is a holdover from an earlier title idea) talks about the best tweets. And the article itself only cites The Daily Beast, which is pretty low on the WP:RS totem pole.
Likewise, Huffington Post is a WP:RS for most things, but this is a short blurb in the Celebrity section, which doesn't say the holiday exists, it just says somebody is tweeting about it.
No WP:V, no article. But, it is clear that this has been making the rounds for 15 years (even if only in the Maxims and Cosmos of the world), so it does qualify as a meme, and we should talk about it in those terms. The lede (and general tone, info box, etc) of the article should also be edited to make it clear that we're not talking about the day, but about the meme. In the two sources I looked at in detail (Cosmo and HuffPo, above) both were careful to differentiate between the (non-existant) holiday and the meme. We should be equally careful. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, I heartily disagree with the assertion that the subject fails either notability or sourcing requirements. Saying something does not make it true. The requirement for notability is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. The article includes 24 references, all of which are from reliable, notable, independent and differing sources. All references are specifically about the meme/day. The sources include Bild, LA Weekly, Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan, Gothamist, the Daily Mirror, and notable feminist writer Feminista Jones. You can see them on the article. That, clearly, ensures the notability requirements are met. There are also many other sources out there (as per the article talk page and the DRV discussion) yet to be worked into the article. I would like the nominator to be able to provide his/her rationale as to why he/she considers all these sources to not be reliable, and back up their unfounded assertion that the article fails to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. I expect a number of WP:IDONTLIKEIT !votes on this AFD and trust that the closing administrator weighs them appropriately. Disclosure: I am the one who rescued this article and took it through DRV, where there was a strong consensus in favour of allowing recreation and where neither the notability or the reliability of the sources was disputed. fish&karate 09:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, welcome back to Dictioneer, whose second edit in the last three years was to nominate this article for deletion. I disagree with you strongly on this, but it's always nice to see a returning editor. fish&karate 09:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No real objection to rename, although we have many, many articles about internet memes that don't end in the word 'meme'. fish&karate 08:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grudging keep (with many sighs and eye rolls). Although this sounds like the sort of thing that was made up in school one day, it does appear to have staying power and sufficient coverage to ensure notability has been met. It appears to have gained some coverage in both popular and academic presses, as demonstrated by the fine sourcing. The article as it currently stands could better contextualize the topic as a cultural phenomenon in the lead, but I can not support deletion based on subject matter alone. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My understanding of the process (as Fish points out, I’m not a very active or experienced editor) is that as the nominator I don’t get a(nother) vote, but that I can supply more information in support of my position. My reading of WP:V suggests there are 3 components for source reliability: 1) the publisher of the article, 2) the author of the article, and 3) the article itself.
    • 1) Quality of publications: Fish listed a set of sources on the article’s talk page, many of which were used. The original draft author, Wikisaurus, commented that he had serious doubts about their quality, and I concur. Most publishers of the sources cited in the article are blogs, social media, lifestyle, and community sites, none of which qualify automatically as reliable sources under WP policy. The next largest group of sources are online tabloids, which WP policy cautions about using as reliable sources. The last group are the 3 websites devoted to the topic itself, disqualified because they aren’t independent. There are no academic publishers on the subject.
    • 2) When listed, most authors were freelancers, bloggers, or social media commenters specializing in food & drink, lifestyle, and/or sexuality topics. This doesn't disqualify the source but neither does it strengthen the case for it.
    • 3) Wikisaurus also noted that the authors speculated about the subject rather than report news about it. I haven’t found a single source that reports an actual observance or quotes a participant. In fact, many either assert that it’s fake/made up or include caveats such as “it’s unclear whether anyone has actually observed it.” Other ordinarily reliable sources, including the Huffington Post article (category, “Weird News”), simply summarize tweets and other social media posts. No one reported the subject as factual content. The closest I found were articles that, assuming the existence of the subject (and remember, many contained caveats about whether it existed), either gave opinions or summarized opinions found on social media.
    • Since there are 24 sources, I won’t go through each one here. As I get time over the weekend I’ll add a section to the article’s talk page and itemize each source and the particular problem I see with it.
Dictioneer (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TonyBallioni's comments at the most recent deletion review. I was fixing the past deletion discussions template box on the article's talk page and it gave me occasion to look at the last deletion review in greater detail and I can't help but agree with TonyBallioni. This article certainly meets most of the notability standards, but that isn't the only issue to be assessed at AfD. WP:NOPAGE is clear that, given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, some topics do not warrant a standalone article. This topic would be much more suitably covered by a sentence or perhaps even a paragraph in a broader article about BS holidays and/or by a sentence or two in the Valentine's Day article in a section about cultural perceptions of Valentine's Day. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this clearly isn't encyclopaedic content. The wall of text above demonstrates that this is being forced on the encyclopaedia. However if it remains then it must move to meme, as there is no day. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
this clearly isn't encyclopaedic content. Then do enlighten us, because that's evidently not "clear" to many of the participants in this discussion.
The wall of text above demonstrates that this is being forced on the encyclopaedia. Does discussion = forcing? Or are you suggesting that the participants in this discussion lack free will? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep- I voted to relist at the DRV because I thought the sourcing was weakish but plausible, but I expected to vote delete in the coming AfD. Now I find myself surprised that the sourcing actually is sufficient. Hm. Reyk YO! 14:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Reyk: Surely sourcing oughtn't be the only thing considered. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We also have this wonderful shortcut that I just discovered today WP:BADIDEA, which apparently is policy, and applies in droves here. As a side note, this might be my new favourite policy shortcut. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it very much either, but that alone isn't reason enough to make me !vote delete. Reyk YO! 06:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does WP:IDONTLIKEIT take precedence over policy? And would you agree, then, that sourcing and verifiability is not the only thing we should be considering here? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't a place for shitty gag holidays that just happen to get human interest press because of a funny name. The GNG is not a right to inclusion, it is a rebuttable presumption, and as my IP friend above points out, this seems to be the perfect application of WP:NOPAGE. There is no compelling reason to have a standalone page, and plenty of reasons to delete (I urge anyone with admin goggles to look at the deleted histories to see what will inevitably happen here.) At most, we can give it a sentence in another article, and there is no reason to keep the text history here. I'm sure I'll get IDONTLIKEIT rebuttals, but as I'm fond of pointing out, every policy and guideline is effectively IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT: at some point, consensus is commonsense. When we deal with the question of what is and isn't encyclopedic content (and thus what is indiscriminate), we are ultimately coming down to value judgements as to what does and doesn't pass the smell test. This doesn't pass that test, and in accordance with the notability guideline, it shouldn't have it's own article, even though it may meet the strict wording of the GNG. That alone is not enough to guarantee an article, and we have plenty of reasons to go with the other options available under our policies and guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you're saying is "even though it meets the GNG it shouldn't have an article because I don't want it to". Yes, you're right, that is indeed wholly an argument based on your personal dislike of the topic, and should be ignored by the closer of this AFD. fish&karate 08:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm saying that the text of the notability guideline is absolutely clear that the GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion, and arguing that there are good reasons to delete it based on rational argumentation, which we are supposed to take into account in these conversations. Keep because I believe in the GNG even though I think we shouldn't have this article is a much less rational position, and should be completely ignored. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the Keep points made by the above editors. Sources are adequate, which is enough to Keep. WP:IDONTLIKEIT either, as a vegetarian and near-vegan, but that can't be used to delete a page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can. If everyone agrees it is a horrible subject that we don't want a page on, but can't find a policy reason to delete it, then we have a consensus to delete. That is policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are adequate, which is enough to Keep. Is sourcing really the only thing that should be considered at AfD? Because our policies beg to differ. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: I agree with Tony's thinking above but respect the effort Fish has put into this. A possible compromise: Fish has added S&BJ Day to a WP listicle on internet memes and included the strongest meme citation (the Feminista Jones blog post). What about deleting the article, “salting” the title (that apparently was its status for the past 12 years or so), but keeping the entry in the memes listicle with the Feminista Jones blog post as a citation? Dictioneer (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with this as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's roughly what I had suggested, though you would probably want a fully protected redirect rather than a salted deletion. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong objection to this. My main concern is that whatever we do, we make it clear that we're talking about a meme, and not a real holiday. We can do that by renaming this article, and some editing of the text. And keeping the listing in List_of_Internet_phenomena certainly makes sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I get the IAR arguments for deletion (any WP:N argument is clearly refuted by the sources). I'd not really object to a merge given that (based on IAR/IDONTLIKEIT) I don't see a need for the article. But I really dislike removing knowledge that is well cited as it can be useful to someone. And the meme merge target doesn't make sense to me--it isn't a meme in the modern sense (or the older sense for that matter). A page on "Made up holidays" or the like (Festivus could be merged in or at least linked to for example) might make sense. So keep for now, but willing to listen to merge ideas. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really in the same league as Festivus, which has sources in such mainstream media as CNN, Parade, ABC News, USA Today, LoHud, NY Times, NPR, Dallas News, Time, The BBC, NewsWeek and Newsday. And while I recognize that they're not much better than blogs, three sites that purport to list holidays include Festivus (Time And Date, Days Of The Year, and National Day). That's quite a step up from Cosmo and Maxim. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I agree which is why I suggested such an article would just list Festivus (sort coverage and then a link to the full article). Though per IDONTLIKEIT, I'm not sure which I dislike more the holiday discussed in this AfD or Sinfeld :-) Hobit (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd not really object to a merge given that (based on IAR/IDONTLIKEIT) I don't see a need for the article. With respect, you seem to be creating a caricature of the argument. The issue isn't just WP:IAR but rather WP:NOPAGE. This is a subject that could be suitably covered by a sentence or two in the Valentine's Day article. There could be a section about cultural perceptions which would discuss gendered dynamics surrounding the tradition using Steak and Blowjob Day as an example.
But I really dislike removing knowledge that is well cited as it can be useful to someone. Not liking something doesn't trump the policy WP:IINFO. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing stopping us having a sentence or two in the Valentine's Day article as well, discussing the gendered dynamics etc. etc. That is not a strong argument to delete this article. fish&karate 08:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a strong argument to delete this article. What about that comment led you to believe it was a wholistic argument for the article's deletion, Fish and karate? It was merely a critique of Hobit's argument. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing for the article's deletion, 142.161.81.20, and are waving WP:IINFO and WP:NOPAGE around as reasons to do so. Don't be disingenuous. fish&karate 12:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, Fish and karate. If you are wanting to have this discussion in good faith, you would best reply to a comment that is making a more wholistic argument in favour of the article's deletion. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this lead to further consideration, given that almost no one advocating for the deletion of this article is doing so on the basis of insufficient sourcing? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because those sources expanded the article further. Like I said. fish&karate 08:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article having been expanded is not in itself an argument against its deletion. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is sourcing the only issue we should be assessing? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only actual objection seems to be IDONTLIKEIT. In all other respects it meets our usual standards for this sort of subject--the references seem more than adequate. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only actual objection seems to be IDONTLIKEIT. And WP:NOPAGE. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sourcing isn't ideal, but is sufficient. The first two sentences make clear that the day is a "satirical holiday", and "an internet meme, with little or no observance in reality" - which provides adequate context to qualify the subject. Alternately, if the page does get deleted, then I would support converting the page to be a redirect to the entry at List of Internet phenomena#Other phenomena. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is sourcing the only issue we should be assessing? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are citations the only issues we should be assessing? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We could discuss your relentless badgering too if you like. Reyk YO! 06:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do tell us how asking someone a singular question once is "badgering" them. And I should note that you have yet to answer the above question. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You keep asking the same question over and over and over and over regardless of the answers you get. That is badgering by any reasonable understanding of the term. Even the question above, which you allege I haven't answered, is just the same one you asked me earlier with slightly different phrasing and which I already did answer. If I were to provide another response, you would just ask it again with different wording. Do not contact me again, and I strongly suggest nobody else indulge this repetitive pestering. Reyk YO! 08:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't address whether a standalone article is most appropriate means for Wikipedia to present the subject (see WP:NOPAGE). 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a dumb "holiday" but it's got enough sources to pass the WP:GNG. As for the WP:NOPAGE argument, that section of the notability guideline is primarily about if a topic would be better explained in the context of a larger page and if there's enough sources to support a standalone article. There's clearly enough sources to support an individual article, and understanding of the topic would not be improved by having this content merged onto some other page, given the nature of this "holiday". ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notability demonstrated by sources. Not all sources may be good, but at least some are. WP:IAR is not a trump-card when many others dispute the action based on other pillars. It certainly relates to other articles (memes and Valentine's day), but there seems to be enough to say to make a stand-alone article than trimming down to fit in a list or other larger topic article. And it's not strictly about either one, so having a stand-alone that links to/from each is a cleaner solution (intersection topic) than having the content in one and linking from other. As long as the article clearly states that this is a made-up/parody/hoax/viral-meme thing, WP:NPOV says we write what others write rather than choosing what is real and true or what we think is important. DMacks (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Steak_and_Blowjob_Day_(4th_nomination)&oldid=1068983856"