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. Keep votes are admittedly "weak", and several editors agree that the sources listed are not sufficiently independent or detailed to confirm notability. Taking this into consideration, I see consensus as leaning towards delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pathway Family Center[edit]

Behavioral-health-care facility lacking third-party published coverage as evidence for notability (has been tagged for notability since May 2009). Additionally, page is the continuing focus of "editing attention" from users committed to either (1) disparaging the organization or (2) promoting it. I suggest deletion as a non-notable topic, and further point out that Wikipedia does not provide a platform for carrying on battles about non-notable topics. Orlady (talk) 18:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Increase the Straight,_Incorporated page instead. Pathway Family Center, Kids helping Kids, AARC, Kids of North Jersey, Kids of El Paso and others are all off-springs of Straight. They used the same level system but have altered a few things about the punishments. Covergaard (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep has some third party coverage [1]. LibStar (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting list. I haven't registered or paid to read all of those ghits, but most of the ones I looked at are press releases, particularly announcements of fund drives by Pathway. This is the closest thing I saw to genuine 3rd-party coverage, and it also looks like an article written on the basis of Pathway's own marketing materials. --Orlady (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per LibStar. I looked atthe news articles, which could be added, but is not my thing. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references are truly independent or substantial.DGG (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to broader topic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which topic did you have in mind? --Orlady (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking Straight, Incorporated, but I see that is now a defunct organization. Is there an article on drug treatment facilities? It seems to be controversial and interesting, so there's a fair indication of notability. I was thinking that dealing with it in a broader way might be appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need independenent coverage with enough detail for at least some sort of article. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking at WP:DEL#REASON, I think this article "...fail[s] to meet the relevant notability guideline," in that there is not "significant coverage" of Pathway Family Center for it to be considered notable. ---kilbad (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2009 (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.