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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fight the New Drug[edit]

Fight the New Drug (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Despite the sheer number of ghits news and otherwise, I can find no evidence this meets inclusion criteria. Specifically, there are a ton of passing mentions but there is almost nothing substantial. The article is also rife with POV pushing (pro-this org.) Praxidicae (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete – mostly just mentions in passing related to a single event. The only in-depth coverage is in the form of opinion-type hit pieces in student newspapers, such as St. Norbert Times and The Racquet. The article itself is rife with POV-pushing and promotional content, and I can't find enough coverage in reliable sources to improve this to our standards. Fails WP:NORG. Bradv🍁 15:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The primary source that was used Bradv just deleted, so, yeah, POV pushing continues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.36.29 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care, and it is irrelevant if you are biased for or against this organization. At the end of the day, there are not enough WP:RS for writing such article, so the organization does not pass WP:N. Discussions in local newspapers are not enough. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — the article is now an advertorial. Severely lacks WP:FRIND sources. The only positive claim supported by independent sources is that the organization has produced a video, which was spread by mainstream media. Not enough for having its own article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet WP:NORG. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable organization, every source is primary or about Elizabeth Smart and not the org itself. SWL36 (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not-notable entity. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable, does not meet requirements.Wikibhw (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that User:Wikibhw has made no other edits other than this !vote. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2019 (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.