Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug Watch International

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. Luna Santin 19:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drug Watch International[edit]

Organization of little significance, no references, and appears decidedly POV (exists solely to promote a particular POV) ////Blaxthos 23:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. A quick Google reveals that it's a published non-profit organization. Considering some of the other orgs that make the cut this is notable enough for me. NeoFreak 02:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Rewrite to avoid similarities with http://www.drugwatch.org/History.htm --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I'm sorry to step back in, but I guess I should have been more clear. My points are this:

organization itself is a prop: If you do more than a quick google you'd see that the organization in question is only "published" as a less-than-quarterly newsletter. The newsletters only contain opinion pieces, analysis of non-peer-reviewed studies (although the studies themselves aren't published) and pro-viewpoint news blurbs. They do no original research, and do nothing but blare press releases about themselves. It's all flash.
original research: I can't find anything about this organization that isn't original research... it's all circular. Everything you get on google ends up sourcing back to their own press releases! No one else is writing that they actually do anything.
significance: There are only 6 hits on google. All six source back to the same press releases! Six hits is not a significant organization.
repitition: As someone mentioned, avoid similarities with their own self-published history. How come all these google results read exactly the same? it's all from the same source!

/Blaxthos 07:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Peta 04:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in interests of NPOV.--Holdenhurst 12:30, 29 September 2006 (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.