Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Orgasm (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. Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Global Orgasm[edit]

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

Notability? Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this has been kept before, and I see no rationale to say why that consensus should be changed. Prince of Thieves (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was kept in 2006 but I am inclined to believe the inclusion criteria has become more strict since then. The sources in the article itself is week, and nothing beyond routine press coverage. I do not see evidence of general notability. I could be wrong here, and am open to changing my vote if the community decided that it is in fact notable. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The first debate, in December 2006, was very, very much in the "keep for now" vein — 2006 coverage was pervasive but there was no way of knowing if the event would gain traction and coverage would continue. It does not seem to have done that. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it comfortably passes the threshold of notability. The article needs improvements, for sure, but even as it is, it should stay up. -The Gnome (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps the subject of the article is ridiculous, but when an article's sources are as diverse as the Sydney Morning Herald, Fox News Channel, and the SF Chronicle, it's hard to say it doesn't meet WP:GNG. A title change might be appropriate - perhaps "The Annual Global Orgasm for Peace", which appears to be the actual organization name? Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've done a search on Factiva, and despite the bizarre name, there is substantial international RS coverage, including articles from "The Times", "The Toronto Star", "The Telegraph", "The Guardian", "Associated Press", "Sunday Times", and others - some going back 10 years about this event. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Close your eyes and think of world peace." Okay, a joke that bad means I need to get the newspapers.com machine going to come up with a serious opinion... Carrite (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Should redirect from the original name, Solstice Synchronized Global Orgasm for Peace Day... Carrite (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It got a big splash of coverage in 2006 as silly filler, but no after event coverage (which would have been truly amusing, come to think of it). I'm just not seeing multiple events here. Just a few seconds and it was gone, the event spent. While both orgasms and world peace are notable, in my opinion this so-called annual event is not. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. That the "event" ends quite fast is irrelevant.BabbaQ (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.