Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BAYSWAN

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 speedy keep. The article as it stands now is vastly improved from the version at the time that Seraphimblade created the nomination. Congratulations on Yksin and others for a job well done. Placeholder account 03:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BAYSWAN

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. -- Yksin 23:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

BAYSWAN (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Was speedy tagged under A7, but there is at least an assertion of notability, so it's not speedyable. Still, I see very little to indicate that we should have this article. Despite the voluminous number of "sources" presented, many of them do not mention the organization at all, and those which do simply name-drop it. One source is an in-depth essay regarding it but gives no idea who its author is or why it's reliable, and even presuming it did, it wouldn't be enough for an article, nor can I find anything more substantive to use. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. I've located three sources through Newsbank (subscription news archive) which further document some of the facts presented here & the notability of the organization. I've also found other references on the Internet which substantiate claims of this organization's notability & importance both in the Bay Area & nationally in the area of advocacy & protection of the rights of exotic dancers & sex workers. It's late here now, but I'll be adding info from these articles and sites tomorrow, with citations. Meanwhile, suffice it to say that the organization's notability is confirmed in the sources. The article should be kept. --Yksin 07:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep BAYSWAN does incredible advocacy work but not so good in the self-promotion area, hence they are widely quoted and used resource, rather than seeking headlines. They support researchers and policy-makers "behind the scenes" to keep bad laws from happening and supporting other activists. When they do sponsor conferences and events they are usually not the presenting sponsor but will lead one panel, for example. They often work in conjuction with the better known and even more visable COYOTE and St. James Infirmary. Do I expect to see headlines proclaiming their work, no. Do I expect to see major fundraising events to buy then new computers, no. Do I expect to see politicians lining up to recognize what they do, no. But a quick search for anyone looking for sex-worker support or research leads to them and the body of knowledge they have amassed and freely make available. Frankly, I was stunned they were nominated for a delete at all but will use the opportunity to help build the article. Benjiboi 09:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep With Yskins extra sources it passes Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. Nick mallory 10:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - recommend speedy close. Any lack of references has clearly been fixed and notability has been established. Thanks, Yksin! Your efforts are greatly appreciated. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 01:52, 5 June 2007 (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.