Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexpo

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 of the debate was KEEP. Babajobu 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexpo

This does not seem to be notable. It is simply a statement of an existence of a sex-shop.Prude 01:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Just a Comment. This is Prude's only action on Wikipedia. Suspect sockpuppet. Xtra 02:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A quick Google search turned up statements such as this one that 60,000 people attended the event in Sydney, and this one that more than 1,000,000 people have attended the various "sexpos". That seems to meet the notability threshold. --Thunk 02:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Thunk, I Think. Ruby 02:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If for nothing else, because it's verifiable as this convention has been covered by good sources like The Age. --W.marsh 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ø tVaughn05 ^talk_contribs
• Comment, a little bit of research shows that it is not limited to Australia; however, they are also probably unrelated to each other. Peyna 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • IIRC, the New Zealand ones are linked to the Aussie ones - not sure about elsewhere though (Keep) Grutness...wha? 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough for me. Possibly expand into general "sexpos" held elsewhere. — TheKMan^talk 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Astrotrain 10:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough. Looks very Australia centric, could we have a more worldwide view of Sexpos. --Terence Ong 12:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 11:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, whether it deals solely with the Australian version or is expanded to cover other countries, it's notable either way. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly moving to ClubX Sexpo (with a redirect, of course) to allow for future articles on other sexpos. Confusing Manifestation 12:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per everyone. No need to move it yet - if it becomes an issue we can move it later. Ben Aveling 13:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand -- Ianblair23 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- Longhair 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep it's not just a sex shop. Has more attendees than hillsong (the cult). --Sumple 22:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Calling an organisation a cult when it's not related to the topic of discussion seems a bit uncalled for.
• Keep. Australia's most prominant trade-show for the adult industry. Cnwb 23:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete As Club X doesn't even have its own artical --T-rex 23:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Prominent trade-show in Oz. Metta Bubble 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, tasteless and not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. --Agamemnon2 06:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I wonder if the original nominator's username is relevant to his/her decision to nominate? -- Chuq 23:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Noteworthy australian trade show that attracts a lot of media coverage. Agnte 12:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Taste is not a matter of encyclopedic value. Have you seen how large the article on Fuck is? NOt to mention articles like List of Japanese sex terms--ZayZayEM 06:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Large enough to be notable. Content a bit press-release like though at this stage. Andjam 09:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Some people really should learn how to use Google. Ambi 09:48, 30 January 2006 (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.