Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Chance 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 delete--Docg 21:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Second Chance Housing

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article fails WP:CORP; no notability is established. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 02:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Google Search gives notability for the term to be included on wikipedia.Quior (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Either this is an article on the organization, in which case it needs to demonstrate that there are sufficient reliable sources about the WP:ORG, or it's an article about the neologism "second-chance housing", used in more than one community and by more than one org to mean (apparently) a variety of things. --Dhartung | Talk 07:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of any notability either as an organisation or a generic term. Looks very much spam for this outfit who keep coming up in the Google search results. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I did this search and this search which support the term is used more than an organization/firm.Quior (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I agree with Quior that this is a general term, not necessarily a specific company, and point to this, and this. (The former document even defines the term: "a “second chance”housing facility, which means it does not refuse to rent to individuals who have a criminal background, serious mental health or substance abuse problems, poor or no credit history, inconsistent employment, or a poor rental history. Consistent with the “second chance”philosophy, Lennox Chase employs a flexible and “case by case”screening process with individuals seeking residency there who don’t meet normal standards used by the property management company in other instances.") It needn't necessarily fail by WP:CORP. I'm afraid that I do think it's a neologism; I haven't been able to find enough on my own to confirm wide-spread usage, and there's not enough separate sourcing at the searches above to help out with that. I wonder where Wiktionary stands on limited use terms? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2008 (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.