Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Violence against Children

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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Violence against Children

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

Queried speedy delete, by this message in my user talk page: "Hi Anthony. Could you give me some more information on why the Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking in Human Beings and Sexual Violence against Children page has been deleted? There already is a Dutch page on the Rapporteur. As human trafficking occurs around the world, it is good to know that there is a Rapporteur in the Netherlands dealing with cases like human trafficking or sex tourism. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwp600 (talk • contribs) 10:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC) ". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Dutch Wikipedia page is nl:Nationaal Rapporteur Mensenhandel en Seksueel Geweld tegen Kinderen. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This review of the organization at
ECPAT UK gives a history... the organization seems to be appointed/supported by the Dutch government, but set up deliberately to be independent, to have world-wide impact consistent with human rights push from European Convention on Human Rights
and a 1997 European Union agreement in The Hague, etc. So I am not sure what kind of entity it is exactly, whether a charitable nonprofit or a quasi-governmental agency. More than 10 years old, has had big impact apparently, its reports include 9 annual type reports and specialized others. Seems clearly notable. As should also be the 2004-founded Finnish counterpart and the British, 1990-founded ECPAT UK organization. Try broader searching and try searching in Nederlands language:

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

Also I haven't translated the Dutch wikipedia article, has anyone else read it?

--do ncr am 19:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The search on "Dutch Rapporteur" in "books" quickly yields significant coverage, e.g. in Critical Perspectives on Child Sexual Exploitation and Related Trafficking, by Pearce Jenny J Melrose Margaret, published by

Palgrave MacMillan in 2013 (see this Google excerpt) and Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths about Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade by Janice G. Raymond, 2013 (see this other Google excerpt which happens to mention critically some shortfall of the Dutch Rapporteur). There's more. --do ncr am 20:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dutch office roughly analogous to other national reporters such as the US Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. Satisfies GNG with coverage such as [1] and [2]. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone above - Passes GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:50, 25 January 2015 (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.