Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men Against Sexual Trafficking

:{{la|Men Against Sexual Trafficking}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Men_Against_Sexual_Trafficking Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Men Against Sexual Trafficking}})

Local organization that fails the guidelines in WP:ORG. Kelly ^hi! 17:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Borderline case, I think, but the sources I'm seeing just don't look to satisfy WP:ORG. e.g. [http://www.thelondoner.ca/2011/09/15/marching-against-human-trafficking The Londonder], [http://www.saultstar.com/2013/04/24/group-in-town-to-speak-against-human-trafficking Saultstar], [http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/northwest-communities-get-educated-on-sexual-trafficking-1.1320900 CBC], [http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332827 Digital Journal]... all generally local coverage. At first thought there was a nice section in a book, but that book turned out to be published on Lulu.com (self-published). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. purely local organization with no impact elsewhere.. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

:*{{ping|DGG}} Just to clarify, it sounds like a delete, but I'm not sure what "1dd" means. Likely a typo? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

::*typo from my macro program. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete as I see nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 00:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Coverage in Opposing Pornography: A look at the Anti-Pornography Movement by Sarah Durham, together with the coverage given in the article should meet GNG. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC).
  
• Delete. Tiny local group who received a few articles in their local paper because they put out a few press releases over a super-local issue ages ago. I have founded groups more notable than this. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
• Keep: Adequate notability and coverage of organization in a major metro area. Montanabw^(talk) 05:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete: Coverage seems only local. Rab V (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The book Rich has turned up is the self-published one Rhododendrites mentions. The book and the article have almost identical content but I think the book has copied from here (I can't access the attribution page to see if WP has been acknowledged). (If we delete this article any attribution would likely go up the spout anyway!). Thincat (talk) 19:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - A mere 87 Google hits for this organization, none of which seem to count to GNG. Carrite (talk) 18:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
• Delete. Local notability is still notability, but this organization doesn't quite reach the threshold of being even locally notable. Thparkth (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.