Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution Research and Education (organization)


 * 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) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  20:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Prostitution Research and Education (organization)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

the director is notable, but there is no significant coverage of this organization. redirect to Melissa Farley, or to San Francisco Women's Centers if created. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - as the creator, I'm not sure where you are looking, but I have found mentions of the organization in newspapers across the U.S. and going back 10 years. The list includes the Boston Globe, Baltimore Sun, Seattle Times, Honolulu Star as well as the Associated Press stories. Once I discovered this, I felt it was better to start a stub rather than just a redirect. I invite you to search again, regards. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 14:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete and redirect. Essentially identical to Melissa Farley, therefore subject to WP:A10; no independent sourcing to supports a separate article at this time. No prejudice against recreation as a properly sourced article. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think it has potential for further development. Lightbreather (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * weak keep but rewrite sourced entirely to primary sources. Needs to be re-written based on 3rd party sources that demonstrate notability and neutrality. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, article could sure use improvement but the source coverage is out there. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2014 (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.