Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Passages Malibu


 * 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) -- Trevj (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Passages Malibu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organization and simply a commercial advertisement for a rehabilitation center. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 19:43, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passages is pretty well known as an addiction rehab facility, and there's quite a bit of objective (even negative) reliable-source coverage already in this article, so I don't think it's fair to call this purely an advertisement. I do think the separate article about the Ventura facility could be merged here; no real need for two articles, that I can see. --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * DELETE. I cannot see any possible motivation for keeping this article beyond creating POV on one side of the fence or another of a subject that is barely notable. A commercial on late-night television does not a notable subject make, and Passages is hardly "well known". This treatment facility is only controversial with persons such as a former patient or employee, or anybody who espouses a different method of treatment. What is their method of treatment, anyway? It's not covered in the article. Nor are treatment statistics, nor, actually, any solid data, whatsoever. The article was originally written as an advertisement. The most notable thing about this facility is the obviously extortionist rate they charge, which varies on a regular basis (more often than this article will be updated), and the self-promotion of its formerly-addicted founder, who claims to have both been an addict and to not believe in addiction. This article is supporting hogwash. 50.134.205.209 (talk) 20:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 12:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the coverage is significant enough to demonstrate notability here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:40, 26 September 2013 (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.