Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Sexuality Resource Center


 * 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The result was   Withdrawn by nominator.. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  03:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

National Sexuality Resource Center

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Self-promo article created by subject. Should have been db-spam'ed on creation, but got in under the radar. (Link to user's talk page Archive #1, scroll down to 3rd section). Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promoting by organizations. If subject desires a Monobook skin on its self-published content, it is free to install its own MediaWiki software. Outsider80 (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nominator withdraws objections, see comment at bottom Outsider80 (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete May not be spam anymore but its a textbook A7 case: non-notable organization, no assertion of notability and no sources. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 02:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sources do exist, even if they have not yet been added. I have declined the speedy. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I could only find one questionable article (which sounded very promotional in tone) and a few directory entries. Google news turns up nothing except for a few press-releases written by NSRC. Mister Senseless&trade; (Speak - Contributions) 05:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not yet had a chance to go through them to look at them in detail, but a search on Google News shows that the director of the center, identified as such, is often quoted in major media regarding current issues about sexuality. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 22:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, then it seems that the director might be notable, but notability is not inherited. I have yet to find any sources that confirm the notability of the center itself. -Senseless!... says you, says me 01:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of coverage of the NSRC in a variety of sources. Reuters and the Associated Press both covered the Center's opening, and various projects of the Center have received media coverage since then. I have now added a sampling of the sources, and there are more. The article's subject easily meets our general notability guideline. Keep. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment (nominator withdraws objections) -- article sourced & not as POV-sounding now, withdraw my reasons for nomination, & good work to the editor who sourced it. :-) Outsider80 (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Per sources already added and available. -- Banj e  b oi   19:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While it may have merited deletion in it's original form, this one is good. Ks64q2 (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2009 (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.