Talk:Persons Day

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Persons Day article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 21 October 2011 by reviewer Mabdul (talk · contribs).

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Questionable notability

Festival?? Celebration?? Where??! I have never heard of "Persons day", and I'm a 53-year-old, reasonably well-read Canadian. When was October 18th ever declared "Persons day", and by whom? PK T(alk) 17:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya this seems like an arbitrary holiday, one that shows up on the calander but no one knows what it means. I do not think this meets wikipedia's notablility qualifications.Beefcake6412 (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of it, and it might be notable. However, notability and/or stub status does not mean that one can ignore basic policies such as WP:V and WP:OR. None of the sources provided give much detail about the day (they mostly focus on the Persons Case), and half the article is taken up with a discussion of the GG's awards (and it isn't clear if the awards are handed out on Persons Day or not). My view would be to redirect this article to Edwards v. Canada (Attorney General), and merge its sourced content with the "Aftermath" section of that article, without prejudice to someone in the future who may wish to take a crack at writing an article on this topic that meets the minimum standards for a Wikipedia article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, this article should be Persons Day, not Persons day, but no sense moving it until this discussion has resolved itself.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would make the case that the day is definately notable enough for inclusion. Here's one example of one organization using the anniversary as an excuse for special events across the country. Here's some other events from the League of Women Voters. As examples seem necessary, I will add these to the entry as I recognize that the example to the Governor Generals Awards is not clearly associated with the day itself. I thought the citation the article from publisher and lawyer David Asper who begins his article, "In case it's not in your calendar, today is Persons Day in Canada" Office as a notable example of validation. Wikipedia is filled with celebrations that are only celebrated by a small segment of the population (420, International Talk Like A Pirate Day) and I see no reason to exclude this particular holiday just because it's well known and celebrated among those working towards improving women's human rights. copystar —Preceding undated comment added 12:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I think you need more than David Asper to show notability, but it doesn't hurt. His article references the day, but then is entirely focused on the case. Notability is not inherited - in this context, that means that because one event is clearly notable (the case), a commemorative event is not automatically of sufficient note to merit its own article. The main problem here is that there is no information in the article. When was this declared a commemorative day? By whom? I'm not sure that the links to events you provided establish notability in and of themselves - they're helpful, they do more to establish the ongoing importance of the Persons Case, rather than Persons Day itself. "Talk Like a Pirate Day" seems childish in comparison, but at least that article establishes that the commemoration in that case has inexplicably become a cultural phenomenom. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be a convincing case that this article shouldn't be merged with the Persons Case article. Nobody is talking about excluding it from Wikipedia, but we don't need a separate article to cover it if the only thing this article says is that the Persons Case is important. How do we best help the reader? If we have minimal information (i.e. random examples of the internet of commemorations), isn't that something better mentioned in the main article with the rest of the information on the case? Do we have enough material to merit a separate article? I'm not saying that Persons Day isn't notable (I actually think it is), or that a decent article couldn't be written. I'm just trying to identify the issues. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - thanks for explaining your concerns. I would agree that there's probably not enough material to merit a separate page and would be okay with merging it with the Persons Case article. copystar

As for notability, it certainly is observed - not as a stat holiday, but as a commemorative day, often with a "Persons Day Breakfast" - I've gone to several of those. It's often put on by local chapters of LEAF. However, I doubt that it's significant enough to have its own page - I would agree this page should be merged to the "Legacy" section on the article about the Persons case itself. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]