Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SexPowerGod

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 Delete  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  16:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SexPowerGod

• Delete nn and vanity. The article is about an annual party held at Brown University, I don't think that a mention on The O'Reilly Factor makes this one event notable enough to warrant an article. Jersey Devil 03:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Discussion by O'Reilly is a legitimate claim to notability, but not sufficient in itself. Coverage in college newspaper counts for almost nothing. dbtfz^talk 03:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The party is fairly well known as college parties go, but that's not good enough. There needs to be a reason why anyone besides Ivy Leaguers and Bill O'Reilly should care about this. NTK 04:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. --Ed (Edgar181) 13:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep The bill oreilly reference, plus the notability in the size and publicity of the event itself (I go to FSU and I've heard of this event) make it highly notable. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn and it sounds like you could find it in a tabloid magasine. SunbirdInc 16:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. RGTraynor 16:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep: this sound like one of those stories you here on the radio. B.t.w. did you know that in... It's factual, it appears to be notable for enough for the school... however I would strongly keep if there are third party sources for the information. ie.: a news article... etc. --CyclePat 22:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC) Oh wait there is... Meuh! keep
• Keep but it needs to say how long its been going on, and it be good to know that its going to continue going on for some timee. JeffBurdges 22:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep drunkcruft.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - a typo.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The Bill O'Reilly mention is sufficient to warrant keeping this article. That makes it notable. Bibigon 10:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Everything that comes out of that man's mouth is notable? What is he, the conservative pope? This is a pretty well-known party, but the Bill O'Reilly reference doesn't magically make it notable. If a college party is going to be notable, there better be something pretty damn controversial about it. I think Spring Fling at my alma mater is a lot better known that SexPowerGod, but there's no mention of it even at the University's writeup, much less a separate article—which there certainly should not be. (Quick Google test... "Spring Fling"+Penn = 141,000 hits, SexPowerGod = 245 hits, Wikipedia on top, wait, let me change my vote from Weak Delete to Delete). NTK 05:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's still just a party. Eivind^t@c 19:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this party is notable Yuckfoo 06:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep article could be good. There are no sources cited. It it can be cleaned up and sources added it would not merit deletion. Keep - for now. : ) Lonesomedovechocolate 04:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment the above user made his first edit on April 6, 2006 [1].--Jersey Devil 05:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn party, o'reilly outrage notwithstanding. If WP had to have an article for everything that o'reilly thinks is unacceptable.... Eusebeus 12:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Bill O'Reilly getting angry at it once isn't enough for real notability. Just another vanity article about a small-time gathering/group so it can look respectable. --Wingsandsword 08:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Sandstein 09:31, 8 April 2006 (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.