Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drug Strategies


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Drug Strategies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No secondary sources discussing this organization, none found via Google. All I found were passing mentions. Apparently non-notable. Was prodded, prod removed by author without significant improvement. Huon (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Huon's statement. I read the article and it's clear to me that if they were asked to testify before both the US House and the Senate the organization is clearly notable.DSPolicy1 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC). — DSPolicy1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak delete There are certainly reliable sources mentioning this organization. But if you look at the sources, they are actually about the people involved, who are notable in their own right. For example, in the cited congressional testimony by Philip Heymann, his credentials were given as a professor, not as a member of this organization. Testimony and interviews with Mathea Falco mention in passing that she is president of this group, and then go on to what she has to say. An op-ed in the Washington Post by Falco and Heymann is about policy and does not mention the organization Drug Strategies. Aside from a mention by Donna Shalala, it does not look as if the group itself is notable. The notability requirement is significant coverage ABOUT the organization - which I couldn't find. I could change my mind if shown more relevant sources. --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't usually comment on this kind of thing but having read through the article and clicked on the sources this organization is clearly more notable than 90% of stuff on wikipedia. Living in the D.C. metro I have some good friends who work for Congressional committees and I can tell you they vet testimony very closely. Furthermore when you read about who is asking them to undertake their studies it reads like a list of the most important American philanthropic funds; maybe I'm taking this personally as a member of a non-profit, but just because an organization doesn't profit financially from their work doesn't mean that they don't serve an notable, important purposes.--TyraStnx (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC) — TyraStnx (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - I don't doubt that Drug Strategies does good work and knows important people - but by the relevant guidelines, that's not enough. Rather surprisingly, I couldn't find anybody writing about Drug Strategies itself. I also don't doubt there's less notable stuff on Wikipedia, but that's no excuse, either. Huon (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 15:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - As others have said, there is coverage that mentions this institute while talking about some of its people, but I can't find any sources that are about the institute itself. Thus I think it fails WP:CORP. It's a close call for me, and if someone could find even one significant reliable source about this institute, I might change my mind. I admit it's a bit difficult Googling a title like that. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 19:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.