Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop Porn Culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn due to recent prior AfD. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop Porn Culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. All references but one point to the organization's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobbsaladin (talk • contribs) 08:25, 6 November 2014‎ Cobbsaladin
 * Comment: I have no opinion on notability yet, but I am somewhat concerned at how the article is written- it is a little buzzwordy. On a side note, I'm not entirely sure that this should have been brought back to AfD so relatively quickly, as the prior AfD closed about 3 weeks ago. I'd probably recommend that you flesh out the AfD rationale to show why you felt that the last, recent AfD did not represent policy and guidelines, as multiple editors voted to keep the article based on the sourcing and at least one editor (User:Cirt) is someone that I've come to view as a pretty good editor and one that's very familiar with policy and sourcing- you'd have to show how their argument was faulty, in other words and since I view them as trustworthy that's a steep task. Considering that your only edits have been to nominate this page for deletion, I'm very tempted to close this if does not return to the page and give a good reason as to why the prior AfD was faulty. Just to note, a source can have a link to the organization's website but still be considered independent and reliable. With today's internet culture it's actually fairly expected that news articles will link to the subject in question if a website exists. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah- I think I see what you mean. I thought you were referring to the references given at the prior AfD. The article does need cleaning, but a lack of non-primary sourcing on the article does not automatically mean that an organization is not notable. Again, I'm not arguing for or against notability. I would even go so far as to say that it's not impossible that the organization may not necessarily fail notability guidelines, but we do need some argument other than saying that the sources in the article are primary. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   09:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not sure what there is another attempt at deletion so soon after prior AFD. Please see sources mentioned previously at Articles for deletion/Stop Porn Culture. Also, WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep SK2c may apply if "immediately" is construed as "in less than a month", but regardless, notability is the same concern as the previous AfD, which was snow kept on October 11. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll also add that the nominator is an WP:SPA created just to create this nomination. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)--&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm new to editing, I didn't realize this article had recently been nominated. If experienced editors suggest it's too soon to re-nominate, I accept that. But I don't understand the WP:SPA criticism, isn't every first edit a single-purpose edit? I'm still becoming familiar with your wiki-conventions.  Tokyogirl79, thank you for your thoughtful comments and investigation. I hope I have closed this AfD appropriately.  Cobbsaladin (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - frivolous nomination. People generally make SPA accusations when new accounts go immediately to deletion discussions and other contentious areas, because the overwhelming majority of such people have an ulterior motivation such as self-promotion or political views. But, there's no harm done. Go make some constructive edits to articles and you'll never hear it again. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:36, 6 November 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.