Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drinkwise

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drinkwise

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

The article is almost entirely self-promotional in nature, and every single (incorrectly-formatted) citation outside the criticism section. It reads like an advertisement. This problem is compounded by the fact that the page has been heavily edited by users User:DrinkWise Australia and User:DWACEO232, both of whom obviously seem to be associated with the subject. V2Blast (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Google Book search shows a number of hits, which for a non-profit suggest likely notability (coverage by media). Selfpromotion is not a valid reason for deletion (but for tagging the article with COI/etc. templates). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I completely agree with Piotrus, marginally meets notability. Maintenance tags are sufficient to handle promotional issues. Ireneshih (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a major rewrite, but the subject is sufficiently notable, even if the only good references to that are criticisms. Essentially it needs to be rewritten as "This organisation, which does this, and is best known for criticisms from...". But it still deserves an article.Mark Marathon (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2014 (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.