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.  Sandstein  19:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

China Rehabilitation Research Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The PROD still applies because this is in fact a business and a business listing at that, showing it clealy only existed for this and none of this convinces a better article especially when WP:NOT applies. SwisterTwister talk 17:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a state-funded hospital and research centre, not a business. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply no sources to suggest it meets WP:GNG. It may very well meet standard that under the correct (although currently missing) Chinese name, but that coverage would doubtfully add to en:Wikipedia. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.