Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atria Senior Living (2nd nomination)


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Atria Senior Living
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of notability.  DGG ( talk ) 04:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the sources found by in the previous AfD at Articles for deletion/Atria Senior Living: "Keep - Meets WP:CORPDEPTH per,,  ,  . NorthAmerica1000 08:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)" In particular, the articles in the Houston Chronicle and Darien Times provide detailed coverage of the subject. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Atria Senior Living to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutral but leaning to "weak keep and rewrite" based on the references listed in the prior AFD. The existing article has problems that can be fixed outside of AFD. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  05:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:, , , , ,, , ], . North America1000 05:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per North America and the reason I used last time. Just because the article hasn't become significantly more developed doesn't mean it should be deleted. It's a notable corporation.  Stevie is the man!  Talk • Work 05:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - it was kept after last year's AfD because of the decent, general news sources about the company (unfortunately these still haven't been incorporated into the article). I can only imagine DGG hadn't noticed the previous discussion when they made this nomination. Sionk (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Unless the sources provided above are unreliable, they are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I agree that these sources should also be used in the article, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 8 September 2015 (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.