Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recovery research institute


 * 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 merge to Massachusetts General Hospital. I will fix the capitalization first. MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Recovery research institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article is full of references but they do not deal with the institute itself-- they're about the doctors and the research papers they have published. Other refs are self-published by Harvard or the associated hospital. An absence of good refs dealing with the subject means it fails WP:GNG. Article was created by a paid COI editor for promotional purposes. See confirmation here. COI editor also removed PROD.(Deletion issue is still notability, not COI.) See also the COIN discussion. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 22:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Massachusetts_General_Hospital and add a single sentence there about the founding of the Institute. I find no independent sources for it, and the entire second paragraph of the article cites non-independent sources for people, but not about the institute. What would remain in the article when that was removed would be two sentences and no independent sources. An article for the institute could be added later if sources arise. LaMona (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Massachusetts_General_Hospital. I actually fully agree with LaMona but think it would be called a merge unless somebody edits the target before this AfD closes. DeVerm (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - This entity is closer to a lab than an "affiliated institution" as defined in the section in the MGH article. That section is talking about external things like the Harvard Teaching Hospital Network, not the internal centers in the hospital. WP:NOTPROMO, especially on a known paid COI. Salt to prevent recreation, because the COI editor has incentive to do so. MSJapan (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, the Institute is not a lab, we are actually completely separately funded through private & public donations and grants garnered by the director John F. Kelly (Endowed Harvard Medical School Professor) before starting up in 2012. Proof of that is if you go to the organizations homepage at recoveryanswers.org, you will not see Massachusetts General branding-guidelines enforced, because the institute is truly separate to operate individually, although affiliated. Also, it seems a little weird, (but I get it), that I am the "COI editor." Yes I work at the institute and make a salary, but the institute is non-profit, we do no active fundraising, and our work is all in public interest for public benefit to learn more about addiction through research (to try and help people!). So it is not like I went on Wikipedia to try to scam this entry up here to sell a product. I saw think tanks like the Rand Corporation and such have entries. I also am new to wikipedia and very much appreciate learning about the do's and don'ts of the process, and how it all works, so thank you everyone! - COI, but my name is Alexandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aplante1 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, I just looked up the word "salt"... we have not, and will not try to re-put up a page for the institute if the group consensus is that we should not have one. The group process will be respected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aplante1 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 27 June 2016 (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.