Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rainbow party (sexuality) (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Rainbow party (sexuality)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Is this real? Talk page shows doubt, unreferenced. MAYBE an mention on teen sexuality. (Entire Category:Sexual urban legends articles should go away.) Wholly non-notable... "featured" on single Oprah Winfrey episode only.
 *  Side note: Recommended solution, merge Rainbow party (sexuality), Donkey punch, Penis captivus, Progesterex, Sex party, Toothing, and Vagina dentata into single article, Sexual urban legends (and delete Category:Sexual urban legends) 
 * Also: First AfD was canceled due to nom, not due to discussion.
 *   Vengeance is mine,   saith   the Prime   ♥  20:02, 27 Jul 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm afraid I really don't understand the nominator's reasons here: there are multiple sources demonstrating that this isn't restricted to Oprah: to quote Alansohn from the previous AfD, "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." I'm not totally against a merge, but I don't really understand the nominator's reasons for that either.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per the Hound of Ulster —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filceolaire (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Question- Am I remembering correctly that this was mentioned in an episode of CSI? If so, that would seem to indicate some kind of notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep With respect to the previous discussion, it was very clearly headed for a keep in comments not based on   the nominator--and just a single week ago. The renomination now seems a little unusual.  DGG (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course it may be an urban legend. But urban legends, as such, may also be notable. This one has been covered in nationally distributed, reputable newspapers as well as a major television program (and more, as a brief search of sex Google Books and Google News Archive indicates). Nominator seems to be misunderstanding that doubt about reality is something in the reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The hoax itself is a quintessential morality panic, among the most notable ones.  Also, the AfD we just had on this a week ago was not only closed by valid process, but had the vast majority of people !voting 'keep'. --Alynna (talk) 10:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to meet notability and simply needs improving. Banj e  b oi   00:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep To repeat myself from the previous nomination: "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) 16:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * To start off with, yes Umbralcorax, this WAS in an episode of CSI, a fact which Cúchullain continually denies should be in the article. So if that does enhance its notability, Cúchullain is hurting its notability while claiming it has some. The book itself is a fictional work that indicates that Rainbow Parties are hoaxes. Is there notability? Yes. But this article is insufficient and never will be so on its own, hence my original recommendation at a merge. That we have five or six stubs on tightly-related articles is detrimental to all of them. Put them together and make one decent-sized, well-organized, heavily-sourced article. One article in NYT is hardly enough to assert notability; many pages have been deleted with as much referencing or more. (Granted, maybe I-Don't-Like-It deletions.) Oprah is the only real notability-maker, because anything out of her mouth is media gospel. No, this article will never be well-sourced (two sources? for real?) and should not stand on its own, where it fails.
 * Finally, as Cúchullain and Alansohn rightly point out, the NYT article was about the book. Then so should this article be about the book. A book in itself has more stand-alone notability. Change this article about the book and merge the non-book content (such as Umbralcorax's CSI observation, which was referenced) to a combined Sexual urban legends article, merging from Rainbow party (sexuality), Donkey punch, Penis captivus, Progesterex, Sex party, Toothing, and Vagina dentata. Then delete Category:Sexual urban legends. That has been my position from the start, as shown above. Let me say it again...
 * MERGE it into a single, coherant, quality article.
 * The logic is so plain I cannot understand how it escapes anyone.
 * Now that you've made me break my usual softspoken, user-of-few-words persona,
 * I'm going to go back to being simpleminded.
 * Apologies for the tirade; won't happen again.
 *   Vengeance is mine,   saith   the Prime   ♥  18:44, 29 Jul 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to say the NYT article is only about the book, it clearly discusses the rumors about the parties (the title is even "Are These Parties for Real?" That, plus the Oprah episode, are more than enough to establish notability (as I said on the talk page the appearance on the CSI episode is just trivia, unless the whole episode was about it). There really is no case for deletion here.
 * As for merging, most of those articles are unrelated by anything other than the fact they are sexual, there's no call to slap them together. I could see merging it with sex party but not the others.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to say the NYT article is only about the book, it clearly discusses the rumors about the parties (the title is even "Are These Parties for Real?" That, plus the Oprah episode, are more than enough to establish notability (as I said on the talk page the appearance on the CSI episode is just trivia, unless the whole episode was about it). There really is no case for deletion here.
 * As for merging, most of those articles are unrelated by anything other than the fact they are sexual, there's no call to slap them together. I could see merging it with sex party but not the others.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and don't merge with those other articles. Even if they are all sexual urban legends nevertheless they are different urban legends from different places. the fact that they are all sexual is not enough to combine them though a list or category to link them together is appropriate.Filceolaire (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A reasonable short article with enough independent references to establish notability. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I just took a glance at the article, and found out that New York Times had once reported it. And as urban legends and Internet topic cultures are covered on mainstream news media, they're absolutely notable. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC) 15:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC) fixed


 * 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.