Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex Industry Network (SIN)


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sex Industry Network (SIN)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Entirely promotional article with no references, much of it seems copied from their web site. (tho not in the article, there is what reads to me like a press-release based news item about it gh here .  DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is both a significant health organisation in South Australia, and the peak sex worker peer lobby in a state which has a well-publicised and long-running battle over sex work law reform. They come up in the media at least once a week - of which the article cited by DGG is just one example. There's absolutely no basis to call that a "press release" - they get interviewed a lot because they're a key player in a political battle that's generating a lot of media attention (and has every other time sex work law has gotten back in the news for the last 20 years). While the present state of the article is no good, AfD is not cleanup. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 8 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 01:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, good deal coverage in sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree about the fact that it is important. From my pov, it is important for public health reason. There is a discussion going on on the talk page on how to make it less like a PR brochure. but I think someone who is a better writer than I am has to clean it up. Postcard Cathy (talk)
 * 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.