Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution in Denmark


 * 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.  Singu larity  02:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution in Denmark

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

Not notable enough for it's own article, should be merged into a new article- prostitiution by country. - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 03:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep For now as it seems to be part of a series. Possibly the whole series should be merged into a "Prostitution in Europe" article, but that'd be a different discussion. I do think "Prostitution in Liechtenstein" should maybe go though as I don't think series have to include European microstates if they're not notable for said topic.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncertain merger is a good idea, but as I stated openness to it I'll withdraw. I do think you did this a bit backward, but maybe you're new.--T. Anthony (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not new, but I realized i did do this kind of backwards. Next time i should just set up the redirect instead of nominating anything for anything... - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 02:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the nominator wants to merge the article, then why is it listed for deletion? Kevin (talk) 03:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A quick search reveals many books related to the subject. I think there is easily enough info for a good article on the subject. Further to my comment above, being badly written or too short are not grounds for deletion, only for fixing. Kevin (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Prostitution in Denmark along with its relatively recent legalization is quite encyclopedic. The topic has generated a lot of its own scholarship specific to Denmark itself and its unique legal codes, just it would if say Las Vegas were to legalize prostitution (it hasn't and doesn't appear to be on the verge either). --Firefly322 (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm copying all the articles into the article for Prostitution in Europe. - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 04:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you were going to merge it, why did you list it for deletion? -- saberwyn 04:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Topics can have some overlap per wikipolicy. Legal prostitution in Denmark is something legally and culturally unusual. And there lots of analysis of citations that could be added to show this.  So I still say plain Keep --Firefly322 (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think it should be deleted since it's such a small article, and basically the entire article is copied to Prostitution in Europe, which is more than 'some' overlapping. And i listed if for deletion because i've now merged it into the main article, and it's so small it doesn't need it's own article. - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 04:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well now that you've copied it, we have no other choice but to redirect to preserve the contributions history for GFDL legal mumbo-jumbo purposes. -- saberwyn 07:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep "I just copied all of the content into this other article" isn't a very good argument for deletion, especially when the copying doesn't occur until after the AfD is started. Maxamegalon2000 05:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Now, Prostitution in Europe is an article in wich the majority of info from this article is in, so how about a redirect from this article to Prostitution in Europe - - [ The Spooky One ] | [ t c r ] 05:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Support anchored redirect per nominator merge and GFDL compliance until such a time as someone is able to write up a larger, verifiable, and reliably sourced article on the subject, at which point it can be split back out again. Outright keep as second option. -- saberwyn 07:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid subtopic using valid slicing (by country). Just because an article is slim does not mean it must be merged. --Dhartung | Talk 07:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger which is not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs expansion, not deletion (or merging). Deor (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Prostitution in Europe#Denmark until and unless this undergoes expansion. Biruitorul Talk 16:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Prostitution in X country articles are valid topic. The article needs more referencing and expansion, not deletion.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I see nothing wrong with this article. J I P  | Talk 20:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per many of the above comments. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The topic is clearly notable, and the article seems like perfectly reasonable stub. Klausness (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:SNOW as well. bad article on a notable subject.  It happens. gren グレン 10:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Prostitution is legal in Denmark? I didn't know that.  Topic definitely merits coverage.  Advantages of replacing this article with Prostitution by country or Prostitution in Europe seem specious to me, and an example of imposing arbitrary camps on topics.  Geo Swan (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2008 (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.