Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmer's day

Programmer's day

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Programmer's Day was nominated for deletion on 2004-09-12. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmer's Day.

Imaginary/joke holiday. Ridiculously few Google hits given its subject area, and no sources cited. Dtcdthingy 08:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make it an actual Holiday, and give credit to Wikipedia for initiating this Holiday. BTW, I am really not joking — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdeyab (talk • contribs)
- Because Wikipedia is not the place to promote new ideas. We're an encyclopedia and we only write on things that already exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nigel ^(Talk) 09:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Friends of mine do observe this 'holiday' in one way or the other, me too (yes, I am a coder). This is no new idea, it's been around for a while. Or do you think "what I can't find with google does not exist"? BTW: I know it longer than the wikipedia - only i don't know who told me about in the first place. Tim
- Please cite sources to prove your assertion that this idea is not new. The onus is on you to demonstrate that this article is verifiable, not on other editors to defend their good faith attempts to find sources for an article that doesn't have any. Uncle G 11:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, unless the person who told you is a reliable source then the no original research policy means that the article should be deleted. Google is not the only means of finding reliable sources, but in this case it should provide a fairly good guideline. If the holiday was celebrated by a recently discovered tribe with no written language then maybe we expect to find a lack of references on the web, but that's not the case with a coders' holiday. I assume the correct title should be "Programmers' Day" anyway, or is it for a specific but nameless programmer? Yomangani^talk 11:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Programmer's are by definition the sort of people who spend a lot of time on computers. It makes no sense for a wide-spread programmer specific holiday to lack reliable Google presence. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - However, no verifiable evidence has been produced that this is widespread. Fan-1967 14:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Real programmers don't take holidays. Sjc 12:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what kind of references would be satisfying but the holiday was mentioned in PC World Komputer - a Polish edition of a PC World magazine (read by about half a million people) which sort of proves that the concept was not made up recently by a random guy who only wanted to edit Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.96.228.130 (talk)
- Yeah, but it's not about whether the idea exists. Neither that link nor the one that's been added acknowledge it as anything more than a semi-joke proposed holiday. Semi-joke proposed holidays that barely exist don't belong in Wikipedia. --Dtcdthingy 14:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see why. SAAD is a semi-joke as are most of the things related to geek culture. I agree that calling it holiday is a bit too much, but a little of reediting the article should solve the problem. -- mina86, 217.96.228.130 19:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Citing sources is what would actually solve the problem. Uncle G 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've given an URL to a Polish article which clearly states that 13/09/2006 is the Programmers' Day. I assume that company such as IDG is a reliable source. At this point I don't really know what else you expect. It's obvious Programmers' Day is not an official holiday, however, the fact that it was mentioned on a website of a respectable magazine and the fact article on Polish Wikipedia was created on 25/07/2003 proves that it's not new idea shared among small group of people and as such should be mentioned on Wikipedia. The thing that astonishes me the most is that you want to delete Programmers' Day but want to keep SAAD whereas both holidays are a semi-joke and unofficial. -- mina86, 217.96.228.130 14:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        The only person to actually mention SAAD at all is you. This discussion is about Programmer's day, not about some other article. Uncle G 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've just noticed that the article was deleted 2 years ago and reading the previous discussion shows another valid points: Why do you want do delete Programmers' Day but keep Pi Day, Mole Day, Square root day, Towel Day, and mentioned previously SAAD. There's also another reference which shows that the idea of that holiday was there in 2001 ("Last year Balt addressed with similar idea"). -- mina86, 217.96.228.130 15:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Please don't create straw men, or use the fallacious "If article X then article Y." argument. The article that you cite reports that 1 person is campaining to have this day made an official holiday. Where are all of the other people documenting this purported holiday? Uncle G 00:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DON't Delete Knowing of this day made me really proud. Perhaps i would pick another day, so we could also celebrate on someone. Please keep these article so we can spread it. Thanks. This template must be substituted.
Delete Non-notable, unverifiable. Looks a lot more like something made up in school than anything ever taken seriously by professional programmers. Fan-1967 14:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Moscow Times has a 2002 article, which gives the subject some credibility. Larisa Naumenko. "Programmers Want Their Own Holiday", The Moscow Times, 2002-10-23, pp. 9. -- I fail to see the value in speedy deletion of this, as the only purpose that serves is taking away people's opportunities to actually do the research and find references. It should also be noted that content veryfing the existence of the holiday has been deleted from the article, see the 17:48, 13 September 2006 edit— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.236.208.22 (talk)
- That edit removed a link to some nobody's blog. In no way is a blog considered a source for verifying anything. Fan-1967 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DON't Delete Redefine this article as a reference to a proposal instead of a real holiday so this way it can be spread. The idea does exist so it must be documented as what it is, an idea.Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.92.4.151 (talk)
Don't Delete! The idea of this article is good. There must be a reference for programmers holiday on WiKi!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.170.72.226 (talk)
- Please show that there are references off Wikipedia. This is Wikipedia, by the way. Uncle G 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the "DON't Delete" votes which are making a good case to delete it on their own. Danny Lilithborne 18:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SAVE The concept may not be a religious holiday, but there are outside references: "Explanation-guide.info" "encyclopedian.com and even greeting cards: "123greetings.com" - NLloyd (edu SMUMN)
- The first two of those web pages are Wikipedia mirrors, and not "outside references" at all. And the final one contains no actual information. Uncle G 01:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn to the point of non-existence. Vizjim 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Try Uncyclopedia. Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I never knew about it. Sounds interesting. May be we can spread the word, and get a chance to relieve our stress at least once a year.
- If you wish to proselytize, your own web site is the place. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Uncle G 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However I'd love to be able get an extra day off work, and cite Wiki as the reason mlk [[User_talk:mlk|<sup style="color: orange;">✉</sup>]][[Special:Contributions/mlk|<sup style="color: green;">♬</sup>]] 08:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DON'T Delete. Please dont delete this. I'm very proud of that holiday and I find that only a small part of the programmers know about it. We sould preserver it and keep it spreading.
Keep. Firstly, it hasn't got to be "a day off", it's more like April Fool's Day (that also to Sjc). MacGyver: Common sense doesn't help in any case (ref to your google evidence). BTW when I googled for "Programmer's Day" I found alot of hits that were referring to the article's topic - of course in between babble about "a programmer's day looks like..". On the other hand, deleting does not stop me from 'celebrating' that day. And the lack of 'written' documents about it that don't just cite wikipedia (or rather the tiny fractions of google hits that don't!), doesn't make it easy to come up with evidence. tim
- This points you to the route to having an encyclopaedia article: Have this day properly documented outside of Wikipedia. Have the oral history written down, and published in a journal article or a book. Uncle G 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This day is actively celebrated and honoured by more people than 70% of the holidays mentioned in Wikipedia. If we can't see the reality, then we don't deserve to reflect it. -- 85.187.156.88 10:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Asserting the number of people that celebrate this day, without citing sources against which that assertion can be checked, is not an argument. Uncle G 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Danny Lilithborne's observation above that the keep votes are the strongest argument for deletion. Michael Kinyon 11:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Made-up. Fredrik Johansson 13:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable to non-existent. Ergative rlt 14:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense. Gazpacho 19:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]