Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Orgasm

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-26 13:32Z

Global Orgasm

Sounds like a hoax. Even if it isn't, I don't think it's notable either. – Gurch 14:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks real to me. And saying the anti-war movement isn't notable these days is like saying any mention of opposition to the war in Iraq is superfluous.Maybe this particular kind of protest doesn't appeal to you, but who cares? It's still relevant given the current political climate, both in the US and around the globe.Wandering Star 22:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep That website looks like too much work to be a hoax, and I found a couple of press reports via Google: [1][2][3] (all the same agency story) plus [4][5]. It looks like a gimmick all right, but the external sources do exist. Demiurge 14:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I guess. Though at the moment the article doesn't contain any of those sources (which actually makes it borderline speedyable, but I brought it here for that reason). I'm still not convinced of importance/significance, but if it is going to stay, it needs improvement (i.e. those sources) – Gurch 14:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The event seems genuine - is USA Today a sufficiently reputable source for verification? It probably needs to be expanded, and quickly, though. Tevildo 14:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a link to a San Francisco Chronicle story (though my ES misidentified it as an AP story). The Chronicle is the leading newspaper in the area where the originators of this idea live, so that's enough confirmation for me. My Yahoo! search for "Global Orgasm" -wikipedia got more than 200,000 hits, most of which seem to be about this. JamesMLane t c 14:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep, looks real but it either gets expanded or we will be back here in a month Alf photoman 16:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sorry, real or not, I don't buy the notability of a couple of thousand people blowing their collective loads simultaneously. Danny Lilithborne 04:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very fishy that this is being nominated right before the event. CLEARLY ANOTHER ATTEMPT AT SEMEN CENSORSHIP BY THE CABAL!!!! But seriously, keep per media coverage. --- RockMFR 04:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (media coverage). — Pladask 12:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The prospective event was picked up by a fair handful of newspapers around the world. Mereda 16:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It is certainly verifiable. I have seen a press report in an Australian newspaper, but I forget where. The question is whether it is notable. How many people took part and so on? --Bduke 06:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stupid, but verifiable. `'mikkanarxi 23:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now I doubt this notable at all in a year, but it is weakly notable now. Neitherday 18:54, 25 December 2006 (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.