|
I say add it because it's awesome. You get a steak, and oral pleasing too. How is that not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.95.64.254 (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Why can't you put "Steak and a BJ Day" on here. This is totally important, seeing as how it is only legitimate if it gets on wikipedia and all...
- It's a non-notable holiday. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steak and Blowjob Day (Third Nomination) --ImmortalGoddezz 22:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Definitely is still notable. two or three of my friends were talking about it the other day i had no clue... i had heard it before but didnt really know about it. anyway, i went around asking people and it seemed like everyone knew about it but me. Furthermore, i googled it and found many discussions and websites referencing it. Id say if its still around next year it deserves to have another vote. 24.138.62.120 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- This pseudo-holiday must have gotten some media coverage somewhere because there has been a recent increase in attempts to add it. It does not belong. It does not have an article about it and it is a tongue-in-cheek non-holiday. Please do not add it. The joke is getting very old. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- This holiday does not have its own wikipedia entry because it has been deleted--Multiple times. Each time users have argued for its deletion "because it isn't notable." Every year this holiday grows more widely known--That this has resulted in more people trying to add it should be no surprise: That means it is notable. Surprise, surprise. This holiday is more well known (and widely known) than spanksgiving (which has been celebrated for the last several years in Philadelphia, and includes a parade through Philadelphia.) and (apparently) comes from a very similar source--A radio personality. I've never seen anyone actually participate in "talk like a pirate day," But I HAVE seen the spanksgiving day parade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.79.191 (talk) 03:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yup, growing more notable. Several sources outside wikipedia have it, but wikipedia doesn't like it. It's as made up as Pi Day, so why does Pi day get a reference? Heh, the people I know are talking about S&BJ Day (or Homemade Meal and Sexual Favors Day), and neglecting to mention Pi Day. Heathen, non-Math worshippers :P
- ~ender 2008-03-14 11:24:AM MST
A google search for '14th March' brings it up as a top entry, so surely its worthy of recognition under 14 March in wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.169.65 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singles_Awareness_Day which is acceptable here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.2.163 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Observances cannot be included based on comparison with others. This observance must be considered on its own merits. Please do not bring Pi day or other observances into this discussion. It is a fabricated holiday and is entirely un-encyclopedic. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Who the heck has the right to declare any other well known item as un-encylopedic. The fact is, it is a well known day, and like any other thing, wishing it didn't exist, or the failure of a small group of people to recognize it doesn't make it go away. The fact it exists, even if it is not notable enough for some of you, is reason enough to add it. It is verifiable, it always has a consistent day associated with it, and multiple people from around the world are talking about it, 2 of which were telling me about it at lunch. Un-encyclopedic? Non-Notable? who the hell are you people to decide what the public should see on this website. That is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.25.77 (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Your logic is flawed; You say: "It is a fabricated holiday and is entirely un-encyclopedic." Every holiday that we now celebrate was "fabricated" at some point in history. By your logic, there wouldn't be any holidays, or days of note. When other users compare days like S.A.D. (Singles Awareness Day), International Talk Like A Pirate Day, and Pi day; What they are drawing attention to is the fact that similar celebrations having been created around the same time, and having the same amount of public recognition are deemed "of note," whilst "Steak and Blow-job Day" has been singled out as "not noteworthy." In my estimation, the only reason for the treatment "Steak and Blow-job Day" has received is childish squeamishness. As of this writing "steak and blow-job day" returns almost 250,000 results from Google. If I do not see a better explanation for the exclusion of this observance, or at the least some well-reasoned argument by the next time I happen upon this page I will continue to add "Steak and Blow-job Day" to the list until such time as either; I see a good reason from those dissenting (or at least well reasoned argument), OR my edits are no longer contested (They remain in place). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.79.191 (talk) 05:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- When there is an article about it we can begin to discuss its notability. The fact that articles written on the subject have been deleted 6 times indicates lack of notability. If it is not notable enough to have an article, it is not notable enough for inclusion in this list. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 15:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- This is not intelligent debate. Saying "We'll talk about it when there is an article about this event -- There has been an article but it has been deleted multiple times." does not constitute intelligent debate. Having an article on Wikipedia does not make an occurance notable, thus this in an invalid arguement. I will now reinstate the reference, as the consensus of those who are debating intelligently is for its inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.26.140 (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please try to understand. The standard for inclusion is that an observance has to be the subject of an article (except in the case of a religious feast - which has to be mentioned in the subject's bio article). I can't imagine how someone can argue that if something is not notable enough for its own article, it still must be notable enough for listing in a list that requires notability. This is Wikipedia. Suggesting that "Having an article on Wikipedia does not make an occurance notable" is preposterous. That is how it works here. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please try to understand that this is Earth in the year 2008 C.E.; Not everything of note is on wikipedia, and by the same token, not everything that is on wikipedia is of note. This is in essence the arguement we are having: You say that the topic up for inclusion is not of note, simply because it is not on wikipedia. This is, as you say, preposterous. Onto your other point: "This is how we've always done it." This is a vacuous argument. Just because you have always done something a particular way does not mean that it is the best way to do it. For example: Before humans discovered that meat was better cooked (as over an open flame), we ate meat raw. You are arguing for the status quo, please check your logic. Also please check [[1]], as this seems to destroy your arguement; you say that the page must exist for the event to be "notable" by your definition. Since it is not possible for anyone who is not an admin to edit that page, your arguement is falicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.26.140 (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- Misquoting me does nothing to bolster your argument. I never said "This is how we've always done it" in reference to this topic. Since the article has been protected from creation that means that consensus exists that the event (in any form) has no place on the English Wikipedia. From your comments I can only conclude that you have no interest in having a rational discussion on the topic and your only goal is to be argumentative and/or disruptive. You clearly have no understanding of what Wikipedia is about and you have no interest in learning. Your responses are childish and unproductive. Since your only edits have been in reference to this topic, you clearly have no serious interest in contributing to the project. I only continue to respond for the sport of it. But I guess it would be better for me to stop feeding the troll. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
- You seem to have no interest in a rational discussion either. Simply because an admin has made this "issue" his pet project (or wishes to avoid such) does not mean that a consencus exists beyond whichever administrator, in fact, locked the page. My goal is not to be "argumentative and/or disruptive" for no reason -- as a troll would -- I only seek to expose what I see as an untruth (or at most a partial truth). The untruth being that the reason that "Steak and Blowjob Day" is not worthy of being on Wikipedia due to being "not of note." I have no problem with someone saying that they feel it is a bullshit, or "made up" holiday. It is. That does not change the fact that there are people in this world who observe the holiday. You clearly do not like to do things the way they are done in the real world -- people debate issues with the aid of facts, and, opinions. The fact is that "Steak and Blowjob Day" is observed; If you, and/or the admin(s) responsible for the locking of said page wish to express your distaste for "Steak and Blowjob Day" the best place to do so would be on its own page. There could be a section explaining it, then likely a large number of other sections bashing it. That would be the reasonable thing to do. The current "solution" amounts to censorship. This isn't China for God's sake.... Anyway, on to your last point: the edits tied to me (the IP's from which I've been posting). Just because I have chosen not to make an account does not mean that I have never made any edits that you would call "productive." Also, just so you don't accuse me of "sock-puppetry" I wish to make it clear that I have posted to this discussion from at least 2 IP's (at least 2 locations with dynamic IP addresses). "71.230.26.140" "71.175.79.191" are definately me. In the future, please realize that people like myself are not statistical anomalies. I have had long term internet connectivity at: My home (two neighbors' unsecured wireless AP's, Dial-up), My parents' business (which recently switched from Comcast to Verizon FiOS), My vacation home (I haven't used this since last August), Where I went to high-school (8th-12th grades; I haven't used this since last June), Where I'm attending College (Three Campi I have taken classes at), My local public library (Mostly their main branch, but they have over a dozen satilites), The Scout Reservation I worked on durring 2006, Where I work now (currently has only Comcast, but should be getting FiOS in addition later this month)...... I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point: I have at numerious times in the last 5 years had access to a total of more than 30 unique IP addresses -- and usually more than 4 at any given time. Now please, let us get back to the actual topic up for debate: "Steak and Blowjob Day" and not on your opinion of me -- If I truely had "...no interest in having a rational discussion..." I would not have attempted to cause such. Please do not confuse me being somewhat confrontational with disinterest in truly rational discussion. You know what they say about "assumption." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.79.191 (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have tried to engage in reasoned debate those who wish to see "Steak and Blowjob Day" just go away. For a time, I did engage one of such in debate (although I do not believe his end was soundly reasoned, it may well have been the result of miscommunication), but without continued debate, I must declare my side the winner (when one side doesn't show up, the other wins by default; this is true in both sports and law). If I do not see any dissenting votes before the end of this month (Wednesday April 30th, 2008 -- which is more than 5 whole days away...) I reserve the right to add "Steak and Blowjob Day" to the list of observances on the March_14 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.79.191 (talk) 02:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- The community has determined that this event does not rise to the level of notability required for it to have an article dedicated to it. The community is not me and the decision was not made by me. It was not made and cannot be made on this talk page. Further discussion of this topic on this talk page is pointless. If you wish to voice your concern that the article on the subject should be allowed to be created, please make your case at WP:RFUP. Before doing so, I suggest that you read the previous arguments for deletion of the article here, here and here. And here is the latest attempt at having it unprotected. The article has been created and deleted at least 9 times. It is unlikely that consensus can be created for creation of the article - but good luck. Without an article, the observance cannot be listed on this date page. Also, have a look at WP:NOTDEMOCRACY before asking for a vote on a topic. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 17:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a little tight on time, so forgive me for being blunt. I have time to say what I feel needs to be said, but not enough time to phrase it diplomatically. Don't give me this "not a democracy" shit; It isn't relevant to the discussion. As we have discussed, decisions are made through "debate." The problem is that the people with the "power" to end debate and declare a "winner" are not being fully honest in their reasons, nor are they being at all transparent. If Wikipedia EVER wants to become an academically accepted, credible source this must change. This whole process reeks of politics. I can't stand politics -- too much bullshit. People say one thing when they mean another. I don't really care about "Steak and Blowjob Day" in particular; I simply feel that the stated reason for exclusion is bogus. The "Holiday" has significant references -- what more is wanted? Please, tell me and I will do my best to find it. Also, the reason for its latest attempt's refusal is a total load: "Declined. Your article appears to be a joke. Wikipedia only contains factual entries, so your comedic efforts cannot be rewarded here. Yngvarr (c) 23:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)." I'm sorry, but there are plenty of "jokes" documented on Wikipedia, so this just doesn't grock. I want to see Wikipedia become an acceptable source for academia, but in its present state, it isn't even close. And currently, given the level of BS I see in this particular case, I cannot in good conscience argue for Wikipedia with my professors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.31.184.207 (talk)
- One more thing I don't know if I said in my last post here: I never asked for a vote, or even suggested that one would be appropriate. I'm not going to read through pages and pages of completely useless knowledge -- I'm a college student with a job and a life outside of wikipedia (i.e. I simply don't have the time or interest). However, my understanding of how such things work is that when there is a disagreement, it is 'solved' (for lack of a better word) through debate. Debate involves two (or more) parties (or sides) arguing facts. When one party or side fails to participate, the other wins by default (This concept also applies to the U.S. legal system). Please do not assume that the way you have seen things done (and may have been led to believe is the correct way to do things) is the right way to do said things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.224.169 (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
As this holiday is coming around once again. And year after year it shows up on Fark, Digg, and other sites that point out notable events. And year after year Wikipedia insists on refusing to recognize the holiday even when there are an over whelming number of articles about the event that would show that most people at least know of the holidays existances, even if they do take part. Can Wikipedia FINALLY get off its high horse and recognize this holiday? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.103.74.5 (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Recycling the same non-starter arguments won't achieve different results. No. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- "The community has determined that this event does not rise to the level of notability required for it to have an article dedicated to it." Bullshit. The "community" hasn't decided anything. A bunch of uptight assholes power-mad in their little internets fiefdom have decided that they don't like it, so they shut it down. The fact that I even found this debate on Wikipedia makes the holiday notable. You jackasses are the reason why Wikipedia will NEVER be taken seriously, and NEVER amount to anything but a failed internet experiment, suicided by the sanctimonious pricks "in charge" of maintaining the site. 98.232.219.86 (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well good day to all, I previously had no place in either of these arguments, but did have a read at the long, drawn-out discussion within. In fact this is one of about 2 times in thousands of queries that I decided to contribute, sad I know that it was on such a seemingly trivial topic.
My friends, ladyfriends, boyfriends and I have known about this holiday for years and indeed it was so prolific I thought I could simply reference the wikipedia article to educate my latest significant other on the days affaires. Unfortunately my wager did not pan out, but I digress. Does the fact that this holiday has been mentioned in several written news sources, and the fact that it originated from a nationally syndicated radio station, and the fact that said radio station went so far as to create a website and merchandising venture in its recognition, not grant it sufficient notability? Speaking from a neutral, apathetic, and strictly facts-based platform, seeing as wikipedia's standard for deciding nobility hinges on media attention, does the fact that this holiday originated FROM said media not provide sufficient grounds for the article to be reinstated, and the reference restored in the March 14th's Holiday section? Forgive me for not understanding the logical premise. From a newcomer's opinion it appears that the deletions are being performed from a personal motivation to keep the content of wikipedia 'professional' rather than factual. It's easy to win arguments this way, as the pro-deletion position seems more mature when you're arguing about a holiday largely focused on giving and receiving oral sex; however, this does not constitute the neccesary criterion to continually remove an article that can demonstrate several vetted news/media sources as references. While I may personally find the holiday slightly askew and perhaps a bit childish, I will say that the same is easily said about Valentines day which, while not containing the wanton phrase in its title, could essentially be called 'Bribe your significant other for sex day with chocolates and expensive jewelery.' I apologize for not referencing the appropriate policies or being able to sign this comment to verify my neutrality in the matter, but as I mentioned I am not a frequent belligerent on this site. Please consider my argument and the content of this article from an unbiased standpoint and reconsider.68.197.63.207 (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have to add my opinion on this matter. I just nearly lept through my computer screen removing someone's addition of the observance. I have never experienced such computer rage in all my life. I've come close, but not to this level.
- It has nothing to do with being an "uptight asshole" as someone has suggested, it has to do with being a responsible individual. Why would any proponents of this issue want to subject minors to this information? Exactly what would you tell the judge during your "contributing to the delinquency" trial. "Oh, gee your honor, I didn't know?" And how would you expect a judge to consider your ignorant and so innocent defensive reply?
- Asking or commanding you to grow up is probably futile for some, but I'll try. I'm personally NOT against the observance, neither is my girlfriend, but it needs to remain an adult "out of earshot and eyesight from kids" observance only. Kentholke (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not censored. That being said the article has been deleted more than once because there are no reliable third party sources for the 'holiday' and nobody has elected to take the article through deletion review, the only option since the page is salted. --ImmortalGoddezz (t/c) 21:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
- Without beleaguering the subject to death any more...your words and link were quite..."on the spot" shall I say? Thank you immensely. Kentholke (talk) 22:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
As of 14th Feb 2010, facebook holds various groups dedicated to S&BJ day, these groups collectivly have over 91,778 members!!! - Thats notability!!! 91.111.95.113 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- (I moved your comment to the bottom to keep it from getting lost.)
- In order to be notable enough for this page it needs to have a supporting article on wikipedia per WP:DOY. Until then it isn't suitable for inclusion. Winston365 (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well then it's great that the article can't be created because it's blocked by wikipedia moderators. Who are still citing "not notable, see deletion number one" . Well obviously it wasn't notable when it was a local joke known to a handful of radio listeners. But that was several years ago and now it's an international phenom (I know since I just got a text message reminding me about tomorrows date). I don't have enough time left in this life to build up a credible wikipedia persona and to lobby for the inclusion of an important pop holiday. I just think it's sad that my favourite way of looking for at least semi-reliable information about something didn't work in this case. And that the reason that it didn't work isn't that nobody bothered to write the article but that it's being shot down. An article that has this much interest and which has been requested for several years should be given a chance. However I do know that wikipedia is not a democracy and that there is not a thing I can do about getting this page re-instated (and thus no chance of getting the day back into the list). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.159.138 (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
|
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — 
