Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prostitution in Tunisia


 * 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 speedy keep. Snow/Speedy keep. no plausible reason for deletion  DGG ( talk ) 18:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Prostitution in Tunisia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not worth its own article. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 03:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 03:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 03:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 03:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 03:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 03:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep No policy-based rationale provided by the nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has sources. Score of additional sources are available for the topic. History of the topic in Tunisia is, as in other countries, distinct from global prostitution history.Icewhiz (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: there's no case to answer. While my ideological beliefs on articles with qualifiers (e.g. something like Egypt in mens' tennis at the 1992 Olympic Games) tend towards merging, WP:NOPAGE, the guideline which best suits the nomination, doesn't apply because of the clear plethora of both available and cited sources.  It's a major topic and with a sourced, well-written article, it should be kept.    Dr Strauss   talk   14:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - That is not a policy-based rationale. Even if one was provided, I would still vote keep and recommend an expansion of the article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2017 (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.