Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Boylove Day

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 delete. Sr13 07:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International Boylove Day

International Boylove Day (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Made-up unnotable "holiday" observed, if at all, by a tiny fringe. In addition - occasional pruning must be made of marginal pedophilia-related articles generally, to prevent the addition of an WP:UNDUE number of articles on their the subject (and you thought Pokemon cruft was bad... :/ ). I expect there'll be some Keep votes from editors with an interest in the subject, so I'm asking you to not skip over this one, back me up here, thanks.Herostratus 06:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as no reliable sources demonstrate notability. --Dhartung | Talk 06:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable madeup event by fringe element. There's no coverage in mainstream sources to indicate its notability. Pedo-cruft. -Will Beback · † · 06:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Pedo-cruft XD --Jim Burton 06:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. All events are made up, and many minority groups observe special days. The topic is notable also because of the public reaction, evidenced in the media and 'anti abuse' campaigns. Wiki has infinite space for stuff that has relevance to at least some people, and this topic clearly isn't nonsense or a hinderance of any sort --Jim Burton 06:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as all substantial information is basically sourced back to the groups attempting to get this recognized; no reliable third party coverage yet. GassyGuy 06:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

*slowly erects the wikipedia plank* "IBLD: Do you have any last requests? Tom O'Carroll's pic collection? Mark Indelicato?" --Jim Burton 06:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems notable enough to me, albeit just so. Lunus 12:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An event made up by unreliable sources, with no third party coverage; In an attempt to promote child sexual abuse. --Antipaedo 12:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The latter is neither reason to keep nor to delete the article. Lunus 14:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Sure it is. Every article needs non-trivial, third party reliable sources to estabilish notability. That is what Antipaedo was pointing out. --Cyrus Andiron 15:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I was not referring to that, only to the 'promotes child sexual abuse' part. Lunus 15:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

But per WP:NOT EVIL. Herostratus 00:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is not a policy, but a mere interpretation. And one I do not agree with, as it fails to consider WP:NPOV. Lunus 12:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Promoting child sexual abuse is not a goal of the day, it's rather an accusation or interpretation made by certain parties or people.--Greeny6000 21:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete not notable.Mmoneypenny 13:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I could not find any reliable secondary sources to assert notability. Until it gets more coverage, this "holiday" should not have an article. --Cyrus Andiron 15:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources to back up claims of notability. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no third party, reliable sources, no reliable evidence of communal activities on the part of community in question to celebrate supposed holiday. -Jmh123 16:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable madeup event, per nom. Edison 16:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Fails mandatory inclusion criteria of attribution and notability. NeoFreak 17:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence of notability, no sources other than sponsoring groups. NawlinWiki 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'll go with delete if everyone here does the same for every obscure holiday and religious-figure day that is only known by the sponsoring groups and those who study or track them. Herostratus suggests WP:UNDUE is a good reason to delete this article. I disagree. The article should be kept or deleted on its own merits. In particular, it's lack of notability will be its downfall. As soon as it gets sufficient notability, it should be resurrected. Dfpc 03:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time a so-called "holiday" has been deleted for lack of notability. Steak and Blowjob Day (or whatever it's called) comes to mind. GassyGuy 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable, no reliable sourcing. Horologium 06:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment This is a tough one. The article isn't well written, and is pretty much just a stub. Nonetheless, the holiday has been around for almost 10 years, is celebrated in multiple countries, and numerous ThinkOfTheInnocentLittleChildren groups spend quite a bit of effort telling people about it and trying to stamp it out. I think the controversy makes it somewhat notable, but the article is poorly sourced and trivial. I'd vote to keep it if someone writes a better version. Hermitian 15:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wishful Thinking. I've improved the article with a pair of diffs available here for all it's worth. --Jim Burton 17:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as made-up pedocruft. Burntsauce 16:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment if made-up groupthink-cruft were a reason to speedy-delete we'd have to quick-zap such gems as Scientology and Flying Spaghetti Monster. Delete or don't delete based in Wikipedia criteria, not personal prejudice. Dfpc 23:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless, like me, a number of admins see the objections as unreasonable, we might as well kill it now. Maybe someone could mail worldnetdaily with some of the associated sites, thus making it more relevant --Jim Burton 02:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete for reasons expressed already, SqueakBox 17:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As the creator of the article I think it should be kept, because it is the special observance of a larger minority group. It has been around for almost a decade now and is observed by pedophiles in various countries. There have even been large meetings in the Netherlands in the past. A very notable and controversial debate concerning pedophilia and pedophile activism exists and this observance has also caused a reaction, at least of some anti-pedophile activists. In addition to all of this there are other relatively unkown days that have own articles at Wikipedia: e.g. Transgender Day of Remembrance, Ask a Stupid Question Day, Creativity and Innovation Day or World Hello Day - those articles were also mentioned, when a merger with Pedophile activism was proposed in January and not one of them has been deleted since. But even without the comparison to other articles the subject should be notable enough so that it can be kept, judged on its own merits.--Greeny6000 21:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Please post as many links to as many 3rd-party sources such as newspaper articles mentioning the holiday as you can. Even better if you can cover multiple years. If the only such sources are from one country, say, The Netherlands, then maybe this article should exist only in the Dutch Wikipedia, where it meets the notability criteria. Dfpc 04:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per the above, fails the everything test. RFerreira 05:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

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.