Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Refuge Recovery Centers


 * 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. Consensus is clear. bd2412 T 14:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Refuge Recovery Centers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This poorly sourced AfC approval appears to fall quite short of the requirements for WP:CORP. A preliminary WP:BEFORE showed much the same. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  00:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 00:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep You seemed to miss the comment I posted with this article, This article barely passed the AFC standards. I did extensive research on this article and tried my best to find notability. I found success as there were countless pages of non-local news and articles about the Center. If it was not for the countless pages of sources, I would have declined the article. This article just needs to gain additional sources and it exceed expectations for WP:CORP. According to the AFC rules, you should not decline an article based on little sourcing. If the creator truly cared about this article, this can be improved with expansion and additional citations. AmericanAir88 (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any sources online other than those already listed in the article, which are very poor. Most of the information appears to come from the company website. Brad  v  03:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Passing mention in a publication of dubious reliability, and two puff piece interviews in "The Fix" (no, not the Chris Cillizza blog, but apparently a hip-feeling Web magazine). Umm... there's this in what appears to be the yelp of rehab centers, and then there's plenty of patently unreliable web coverage like the actual yelp page. If there are really "countless pages of non-local news and articles" then now would be a good time to link to them.   G M G  talk   16:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete passing AFC is not immunity for articles. The sources are mix of mere mention and selfpublish, no sufficient independent sources to meet WP:CORP –Ammarpad (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my "Keep" Statement. I am neutral now. AmericanAir88 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - I made some edits, and added a couple more sources, and the Lion's Roar magazine article is both in-depth and national in scope. This place is so relevant, Batman goes there.Vampire Squid (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. remains basically trivial.  DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 13 December 2017 (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.