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. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Rights Watch (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)

Only 3 sourced, excluding reliable sources, fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Joseph2302 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is conceivable that they might be notable, but it can't be determined from the available information--if they are, there should be much more extensive references. This is essential a vanity piece for the participants. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are all reprints of the organizaiton's August 2014 press release [1], duplicated again here and here It's possible they may become notable in the future, but they don't meet WP's notability criteria yet. maclean (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it is not notable. Spumuq (talq) 13:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - too soon. Not to be confused with the Human Rights Watch. Bearian (talk) 14:21, 15 May 2015 (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.