Talk:Donna's Ranch

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Donna's Ranch article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Sexology and sexuality: Sex work Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sex work task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Nevada (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Speedy Deletion

I deleted content that was sourced using a site that did not have the information in it. Much of what is left is supported by the organizations website itself. If the only place to find the details used is the organizations website, it doesn't seem like a notable organization. Chris1834 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And that site doesn't even exist anymore...not sure if this place is even still around. Chris1834 (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability does not get removed because a company goes out of business or the online references vanish. Coverage by the LA Times is not trivial. And a speedy after 7 years with references? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your right it doesn't but the original point was that half the article was sourced by the official site for the business which is against WP policy. As for speedy after 7 years with references...just because no one else has called the article in to question because of its lack of quality references doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted. When I viewed it there was information that was referenced with articles that didn't include the information and half the article that was referenced was, as I said, referenced by it's own official site. As it is half of the history section is unsourced whatsoever. I have no problem with it staying if it has actual sources for all the content. Chris1834 (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed speedy deletion and changed it to ref improve. Like I said, I have no problem with the article if it is properly and fully sourced. Chris1834 (talk) 14:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to remember to get more references. If you have some time, maybe you can add some. The issues in finding them are that being in the sex business, we get a lot of hits from listing sites which are not really of value. Then you have at least two other businesses with the same name. So searching is a challenge. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Donna's Ranch.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]