Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation

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

Deleted previously due to lack of indepth coverage in sources. Now re-created but sources still only deal tangentially with the topic, so fails WP:GNG. Yobol (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough coverage from mainstream media. Therefore lacks notability. QuackGuru (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG just as the previously deleted version did. The sources discuss the drug and its rare side-effects, but make hardly any mention of the PFS Foundation, the subject of this article. The sources fall well short of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" for the Foundation. Although they may be useful for expanding Finasteride #Controversy, they are insufficient to establish notability for this organisation. --RexxS (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article promotes a condition as accepted when this is not really so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cleaned up some of the annoying name-dropping in the article, including naming parts of the NIH as if they were separate from the NIH. The (already cited) sources that I looked at during that process were distinctly unimpressive – one tiny step above a press releases, at best. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organization exists, but seems to have no claim of notability in the article or in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence that the organization meets notability requirements. Deli nk (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2017 (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.