Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legality of prostitution

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. The nominator has withdrawn and there is an overwhelming consensus that this article should be kept. Valid arguments for cleanup have been made and should be followed up, but per WP:SNOW it appears appropriate to close the discussion. (non-admin closure) ~ mazca ^t|c 16:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legality of prostitution

I bring this to AfD rather than prodding it because the article is in depth, well-sourced, etc. The problem is that almost all of the information can be found on the Prostitution page, making this particular page rather redundant. It's a good article, but I don't see the use of a fork page for content that is already well-integrated into the primary page. In light of improvements to this article and adjustments to the prostitution one, I'm withdrawing the AfD due to the solving of the redundancy issue. Tyrenon (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, redundant and unnecessary fork. JBsupreme (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the section "Legality" from the main article prostitution should be shortned and the readers sholud be directed towards this article. In time, this article can also de expanded, and more imformation surrunding the subject can be added. Anyway, the article "prostitution" is already too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.8.172 (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, with conviction. This article is obviously notable, but it severely needs a rewrite, I'd suggest that we search around for an editor who is an expert on the subject, it could very easily become a biased article. ceranthor 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article appears to have plenty of potential and at worst needs a rewrite. AFD isn't cleanup. Vodello (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The reason for the nom was not because the article is in bad shape. It is redundant to prostitution. Just about all the same information can be found there. This is an unnecessary fork. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After giving it more thought, I believe there is just about enough information for an article on this topic. The section at prostitution should be shortened and this expanded and cleaned up. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 23:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I shortened the "legality" section from the article prostitution and redirected readers here. You can discuss this on the talk page of prostitution.
Keep This is a topic that is notable on it's own. It does need a great deal of work. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OK, I understand that the reason why this article was nominated for deletion is not because it is a bad article, but because it was redundant. (Tyrenon who nominated it said that "I bring this to AfD rather than prodding it because the article is in depth, well-sourced, etc. The problem is that almost all of the information can be found on the Prostitution page, making this particular page rather redundant. It's a good article, but I don't see the use of a fork page for content that is already well-integrated into the primary page"-see the first entry). Well, now this problem has been solved, as I removed most of the paragraphs from the section legality of the main prostitution article and redirected the readers here. Also, there is no way all this imformation can be merged into the main prostitution article, which is already long enough. This article needs polishing, but it will improve in time. 123username (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As Timmeh said, I didn't nominate the article for quality but for redundancy. I will say that if I had to pick a part to fork off, I would fork the history section out, but that's more a matter of editorial preference (as one could expand many of the history sections more than the legality one). I actually wouldn't be opposed to forking that off and sticking this back in; though not my initial intention, what would thoughts be on forking that off (whether or not this were to be stuck back in)?Tyrenon (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, now the redundancy problem has been solved. Yes, forking off the whole history part is a good ideea. However, I believe "Legality of prostitution" should also have its separate article. Nearly all the other sections from the prostitution article have their own main article: Male prostitution, Human trafficking, Sexual slavery, Prostitution of children, Street prostitution, Call girl, Sex tourism, Prostitution in Ancient Greece. Why should't "Legality" have one? Obviously, some of those sections are of extreme importance and clearly need their own article, but I think "Legality" also qualifies.

123username (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prostitution article is already long enough and probably in the future people will want to add new sections to it and it will become even longer.

123username (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2009

This article is much more detailed than the former "legality" section from the main prostitution article; it offers new imformation which was not present there. It is much too long (and it will grow even more in the future) to be merged back into the prostitution article.

123username (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of "Legality of..." articles on Wikipedia: Legality of cannabis, Legality of firearms, Legality of polygamy, Legality of Homeschooling .... etc. Prostitution is a subject which is notable enough to have its own "Legality of..." page.

123username (talk) 23:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - thoroughly notable topic, enough content to merit its own article rather than just a section --Alynna (talk) 20:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - very useful article, especially for tourists who may wish to use prostitutes and want to know the legality or otherwise of their chosen pastime. Tris2000 (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Useful article for college students doing tertiary research, with many footnotes/references online. Perfectly legitimate legal article. Can be rescued easily. Bearian (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.