Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Austrian International Sex School


 * 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. ✗ plicit  13:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Austrian International Sex School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

"Was said to be" a hoax or whatever--kind of a joke from the beginning, and never a hoax rising to encyclopedic notability. Drmies (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Agree delete I only edited it because it was there. As BD2412 says maybe a merger if one is suitable Wandererjon (talk) 10:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as written. I could see a merger to topic at a higher level of abstraction, such as the group behind the hoax, or campaigns to counter low birth rates in Austria more generally, if either such topic existed and notability was supported by sources. BD2412  T 02:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  05:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  05:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. –  The Grid  ( talk )  05:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. How has this orphan article about a hoax lasted almost ten years? The only reliable sources in the article are the last two identifying it as a hoax. The other sources by definition are not RS because they failed the fact-checking requirement. Such puerile drivel does not improve the encyclopedia. Sheesh. — Grand&#39;mere Eugene (talk) 12:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't know what to say about this that other delete voters haven't said already. It's clearly a hoax and lacks sufficient sourcing to be notable anyway. so there's no reason to keep it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2021 (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.