Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opposite Day: Difference between revisions

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite 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 17-year-old article has very little content. It consists of one uncited paragraph and one cite-supported sentence. Notability not established. Nightscream (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete I feel like there should be sourcing for why this persisted as a game, or what it teaches, but I'm unable to find anything in the way of RS coverage. Just teachign materials. Star Mississippi 02:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While the concept is certainly notable, the fact is that the article has been around since 2005 and has remained more or less a stub since. For a topic not time-bounded and otherwise well-known, the fact that editors have struggled to find WP:RS indicates to me that this topic doesn't have enough substance to merit being on Wikipedia. I've looked through a couple past revisions of the page, and there doesn't seem to be much more than a couple paragraphs of description and the occasional extra section like appearances in popular media. --Aismallard (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As failing WP:GNG. Should probably then be made into a disambiguation page or the film article be moved there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I'm surprised this has been kept in previous AfD... Spf121188 (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Folks, let's try a bit of WP:BEFORE, eh? Search, don't base things on the article.
• Keep The biggest problem with sourcing this is all the hits that get in the way that aren't quite this. But an article can easily be built around all that.
  • News sources [1], [2],[3]
  • Article on the topic: [4]
  • (source in article), [5],
  • Kids books about the idea [6]
  • Passing references which assume the idea is known to most readers [7].

Sorry, I've got to get back to work, but folks it's clearly notable. Not a great article for sure. And we could have a whole article (or section) on "Opposite day in popular culture" given all the TV shows, comics and books that have an issue or episode named after this... Hobit (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, I actually think renaming the article Opposite day in popular culture and using sources like the ones you've noted would be a good alternative to deletion. Spf121188 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is still not much that doesn't show that this article is better off in Wiktionary than Wikipedia. The article in Birmingham Mail just cites vague rumors about its origins. Unless a clear history of the concept can be found, it doesn't require a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Hobit ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 23:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – Concurring with Hobit. Subject is notable, despite the article being short. Certainly needs some cleanup to provide additional RS, however, arguments for deletion appear to focus too centrally on a WP:LONGTIME fallacy. Article contents do not dictate notability, the subject does, for which GNG is met... at least to my eye. Bgv. (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete My main issue with the sources posted is that they fail reliability and independence standards. The 3 news sources are based upon the article from the National Today website, which makes dubious claims that I couldn't verify (e.g. Eisenhower declared August 17th opposite day. That'd be a really cool origin story if there were a single reliable independent source about it). Doing my own WP:BEFORE I couldn't find any reliable sources discussing the holiday in any detail other than the obvious "here's some ideas of what to do on opposite day." While it's a commonly used phrase, that doesn't justify a Wikipedia article per WP:NOTDICT. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2022 (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.