Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Industry Network


 * 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The result was Keep  withdrawn by Nominator. (Non-administrator closure.) Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Sex Industry Network

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mostly Original Research and/or poorly referenced. Links to local press outlets do make passing mention of the network. Appears to fail WP:ORG &mdash; Gaff ταλκ 04:59, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a tentative keep for now. I agree there are issues with the article as it stands, but I've done a very quick search and I think the organisation may meet notability of organisations guidelines. I've found references in two books and a UN document, possibly suggesting that while it is local in reach its impact is wider. I'd like to take a closer look at the sources and see if this can be improved to a point where solid references justify a keep. Libby norman (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  11:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  11:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. This was nominated and discussed with a consensus to keep all of two weeks ago (Articles for deletion/Sex Industry Network (SIN)), a fact which is noted on the talk page of the article if the user wasn't otherwise aware. It is completely unacceptable to turn around and nominate it again on the same basis. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 15:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per The Drover&#39;s Wife it was open for 11 days from 8th September 2014 till 19th September Articles for deletion/Sex Industry Network (SIN) . Hence do feel it is unacceptable nominate again and so soon. It has been nominated  again too soon on the same basis.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 19:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Primarily because this one was just kept via an AfD that ended just a few weeks ago. GNG/ORG seems borderline, but I think it best to give it some time to improve since it already ran the gauntlet. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, per Articles for deletion/Sex Industry Network (SIN). This is too soon. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. Far too soon for a new AfD, especially on the same basis as the old one. Frickeg (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * WITHDRAWN BY NOM. Comments from User:The Drover& and User:Pharaoh of the Wizards my "unacceptable" behavior are not appreciated and fail WP:AGF.  The article was marked as unreviewed by a new editor at the very bottom of the new pages patrol feed.  I missed the talk page and posted here in good faith for review. Comments against other editors like this are why AfD is so back-logged, because it makes it an unpleasant environment in which to work.  &mdash; Gaff  ταλκ 02:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Clarify with apology My sincere apologies just meant to say it was had been  nominated  again so soon nothing personal there sorry again if my wording were wrong  I also never meant that you had done  it deliberately or was a comment on your nomination ,it was a general comment that it had been renominated too soon,Really sorry if it meant otherwise .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:34, 12 October 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.