Talk:National Stupid Day

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Freedom4U talk 23:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that "National Stupid Day" was not intended to be on Veterans Day? Source: Associated Press 2010
  • Reviewed: Sunny Low

Created by Theleekycauldron (talk). Self-nominated at 20:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/National Stupid Day; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Reviewing in a sec! Generalissima (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Took more than a sec, but it all checks out. Hook is funny and confirmed by the source, article is in good condition without any glaring mistakes. Seems all good to go! Generalissima (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Lasting?

Hi @Theleekycauldron, has this topic received any lasting coverage? It seems like all the articles you cite are from roughly a two day span. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eddie891: I'll be the first to say "not really, no", but I don't think this needs to meet WP:NEVENT. Works of art, such as books, music, and paintings, generally have a much lower bar for notability that hovers around GNG, which I think this meets. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Well what's notable here? The event of its publication, or the work of art? I'd say the event, and subsequent controversy. Phrased another way, would the comic have gotten the attention it did if if was merely published as a work of art? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd say it's not just the date of publication, it's the content of the art itself – the art was scrutinized as to whether it was Davis's intention to insult Veterans Day. Besides, it's worth noting that entire catalogues of television episodes get by notability guidelines without a single episode being able to demonstrate impact, but this one does. For a work of art to have a demonstrated impact is already more than most published works can do. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't point to television show notability as a shining example of what our notability criteria should look like for exactly that reason, but point taken. Imo part of the problem is that there really is very little demonstrable impact. Creator published it, it got attention, he apologized. The end. No visible broader impact on Garfield, the creator, or even Veterans Day. I think there's something to be said for the fact that essentially none of the coverage extends beyond this incredibly short timeframe. But not interested in pressing the point, personally. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

That's definitely a fair cop, I hear you. I think that on the balance, it's worth having the article, but I figured that it wasn't going to be unanimous and I certainly respect you wanting a higher notability bar for the arts. If there were a large-scale push for that, I'd probably support it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, the push won't come from me :P. Far too much time, and for what? Content to complain from the sidelines. There's enough really crap articles out there to occupy the rest of my editing lifetime, not to mention articles needin' writin'. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)