Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow party (sexuality)


 * 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 was   Speedy keep, nominated by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow party (sexuality)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Utter nonsense, barely notable at all, fails WP:NOT. Memeticorganelle (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC) — Memeticorganelle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete The book might be notable but whatever this article is supposed to be about (very hard to tell, an Oprah episode?!!) seems OR. My only other suggestion is to rename the article and make it about the book only, seen as it has coverage in the NYTimes and USA today. -- neon white talk 17:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep media hoaxes that generate a book and an NYT rebuttal to that book have themselves achieved notability. Jclemens (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The book is a work of fiction that has no known connection to the subject of the article. -- neon white talk 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite as an article about the book The book"Ruditis, Paul. Rainbow Party. New York, NY: Simon Pulse, 2005. (a division of Simon & Schuster) ISBN 9781416902355 - got enough comment to be worth an article, and, fwiw, is in 155 worldCat libraries  The "event" is a presumably(?) fictional setting in the book, and shouldn't be the focus of the article.  Note that there are 3 earlier books & a video program by the same title, all intended for primary school children, and apparently on more conventional themes.  DGG (talk) 21:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the hoax itself is a quintessential morality panic, among the most notable ones. --Alynna (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator is a sock of Grawp. Protonk (talk) 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The alleged phenomenon is addressed at length in an article in The New York Times, covering a book on the subject. The reliable and verifiable sources provided satisfy the Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2008 (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.