Deletion of Steak and Blowjob Day (4th nomination)

Comment: Covered on multiple major outlets. THe citations are strong enough that there should be no question about this. 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTCENSORED)

Comment: Meets  per a source review. OTCENSOR|Wikipedia is not censored
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTCENSOR)

Comment: 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  !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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:RS||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE|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 . 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOPAGE)

Comment: per all of the Keep points made by the above editors. Sources are adequate, which is enough to Keep.  either, as a vegetarian and near-vegan, but that can't be used to delete a page
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: an |indiscriminate amount of information and no encyclopedic relevance. Wikipedia is not know-your-meme, and there's nothing better
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: It's a dumb "holiday" but it's got enough sources to pass the . As for the  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOPAGE)

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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)