Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Trade 101

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 delete. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Trade 101

)

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

Small local organization not notable outside its local area per

WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 19:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A mass series of
talk) 07:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as per nom, and Shawn you need to look into the mess before making those comments. Legacypac (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked into it. And two wrongs do not make a right. Neelix's terrible work on redirects does not meet that articles created by him on notable Canadian orgs should be punitively Afded, I've listed no less than 4 others where I believe that is the case, at the ANI. Now, as for this one, I've removed my procedural oppose above. A Gnews search reveals prominent mentions of this organization in a CBC news story and one on APTN. here's a prominent Globe and Mail mention. We have the National Post one already on the article. There's others on Gnews. It's sufficient to meet
talk) 08:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk) 08:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Weak Delete / Redirect - While there are many mentions of the organization and the founders are notable (and indeed both have Wikipedia articles), I'm not finding enough significant coverage of the organization to merit keeping. A redirect is probably sensible. Probably to Bridget Perrier, whose name I see most often connected to the organization in the sources I've seen. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very tangential references in media where they've put out press releases or been quoted for comment in articles not about them: again, I've founded organisations with stronger claims to notability than this (and I would never expect them to get written about on Wikipedia). The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bridget Perrier for now perhaps than deleting as there's not enough coverage at this time for a better article. SwisterTwister talk 07:28, 15 November 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.