Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HEMA (Hookers, Escorts and Masseurs Association)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

HEMA (Hookers, Escorts and Masseurs Association)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Unremarkable web site (fails WP:GNG). According to this article, created by User:Hemanetwork, the site receives 65 hits per day... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep the organization is notable and unique.Hemanetwork (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete how did this not get speedied under G11? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 04:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All 501c3s are notable!Hemanetwork (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure about that; besides, read what WP:CSD is, it has nothing to do with notability. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 05:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete heavily promotion, entirely non-notable. Gigs (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * deletion? This page is the victim of a silly move it really "is" the HEMA redirect. Just delete the edits since 14 October if you think that's necessary. --dab (𒁳) 06:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm sure that not all 501(c)(3) organizations are notable. There are over one million of them. See . They can't all be notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can find no evidence that this is a real non-profit. It's not in any of the databases. Gigs (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's often a long delay for organizations that don't fall squarely into the middle of the obvious categories (e.g., something that isn't obviously a school, soup kitchen, etc.). Most databases don't list a group until some months after they file their first informational returns, which means that a delay of ~18 months is common.  But, yes, we would ideally have a proper third-party source for that fact.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * loves it ima call gurl and this place helps me out a lotProstiliciousa (talk) — Prostiliciousa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete There are no independent sources in the heavily promotional article, and I cannot find any evidence of notability (news and book searching for "HEMA" seems to find only false hits). Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * if it really is an organization that is lobbying on helaf of prostitues strippers naked house cleaners etc it is truly uniqueChuspameinlibya (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC) — Chuspameinlibya (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete Tiny non-profit organizations are rarely able to produce the sort of in-depth WP:Independent sources that are required by WP:ORG.  If they get some attention later, the article can be un-deleted.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands. If proper referencing can be found, I'll willingly change. It probably isn't unique, as there have been or are unions of workers in the erotic business in quite a few countries (so far as I recall). I wish them luck, anyway. Peridon (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only independent source provided so far is a link to a web traffic site that indicates how rarely viewed this organization's web site is. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2010 (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.