Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow party (book)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's vandalproof page &#x260E;  ) 20:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Rainbow party (book)
This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. From the page history:
 * 22:34, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (haphazard attempts to copy-edit this nearly worthless article)
 * 22:36, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (intended to "scare" young readers - USA Today quotes Simon & Schuster editor)
 * 22:42, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (emphasizes titillation over education, overpowering any redeeming value the book might have)
 * 22:44, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (→External links - MOMMY, WHAT'S A RAINBOW PARTY?)
 * 22:49, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (Publishers Weekly says the book makes a "compelling argument" against abstinence-only sex education.)
 * 22:52, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (this wholo article is schlock. it controdicts its sources -)
 * 22:52, 23 October 2005 Ed Poor (delete - hopelessly low quality)
 * No opinion myself. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep for lack of a reason from Ed Poor. Gazpacho 02:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems notable enough for mine and article appears to be in reasonable shape. Capitalistroadster 03:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but probably move back to where it was before and mostly revert to its older arrangement. The term was notable as a fairly high-profile moral panic, not as a book. --Aquillion 03:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and move. -Sean Curtin 05:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Greece has a political party by that name. Gazpacho 07:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A disambiguation is probably in order The Minister of War 09:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Minister of War 09:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable and encyclopedic. Ilmari Karonen 20:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep... as verifiable article about a minorly notable novel; though I daresay the article is better written and has more value than the book itself.--Isotope23 20:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, revert, move back. CanadianCaesar 23:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, article is not junk and no good reason to delete ParticleMan 23:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, verifiable. Both the book and the term have had a lot of coverage in the press as well. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.