Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid Re-Housing


 * 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) Juliette Han (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Rapid Re-Housing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I believe this should be deleted as it seems to be WP:SOAP for the homeless services industry and an echo chamber of the industry view presentation by National Alliance to End Homelessness. Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - Rapid Re-housing is a major part of the US public policy debate around homelessness, and there are plenty of Google Scholar hits to attest to that importance (to name just one search method), specifically using "Rapid Re-housing" as a specific term to refer to this kind of program, and not just the general concept of re-housing people quickly. As a selection: a comparison of RRH to transitional housing interventions, a report from the Urban Institute evaluating performance in high-cost markets (which can be contrasted with the Contemporary Rural Social Work Journal for rural markets), and post-RRH outcomes from the journal Evaluation and Program Planning. If you feel the article is too one-sided then edit and add in information and sources you think are missing. But I don't think deletion is the appropriate outcome here. MarginalCost (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. per . Article content issues are not a valid reason for deletion. The subject is very notable, and our encyclopedia is deficient for not having a better article on this subject. Daask (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic passes GNG. Once again, an article being in sub par shape is not reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2020 (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.