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. The sources provided by those voting to keep the article seem to have been convincingly invalidated by the delete voters. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 06:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recovery Centers of America[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non notable firm. Almost all the references are local notice/PR, generally in connection with the opening of a new center. This is no longer acceptable sourcing, according to WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check the sources I listed here and tell if these sources are acceptable per WP:NCORP. --Madhaberisl (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:MILL. All of the references are to opening of small addiction centers. There's no evidence that any of the centers exceed 209 beds, the standard mid-level assisted living facility size in the United States. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources which discusses about the subject. Please check Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, US News, TechCrunch and more available on Google search pages. Madhaberisl (talk) 16:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, according to this source[1], the center has 253 beds. Madhaberisl (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:PRESERVE per the Non-trivial WP:SIGCOV. Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Business Journals, Courier-Post. looks like an easy keep. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are churnalism. The Philadelphia Inquirer reference even states it got information from the company website and from what the company said. Fails WP:ORGIND. The Philadelphia Business Journals reference is based on this prior company announcement and uses similar information and quotes as other articles such as this from the Courier Post, fails WP:ORGIND. The final reference from Courier Post is similarly based on Company PR and similar announcements, totally fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable run of the mill organisation that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. GSS ^💬 04:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close: There is certainly in-depth WP:RS available for company, where the news is written by staff and not any contributors. This news from Philadelphia Business Journals is alone enough to pass WP:GNG, there are enough other sources that needs to be Googled. Very clearly pass notability. Meeanaya (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meeanaya: Please see these examples of trivial coverage. DGG do we consider BizJournals a reliable source? Don't they mostly write based on press releases. I found this thread (there is a few more) and it was mentioned as non-rs. GSS ^💬 05:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BizJournals contain almost exclusively press releases, and local press releases at that--including it at all is usually an admission that no RS exist, or that the contributor can't tell the difference. To prove this for yourself, read them. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found it, looks like it was taken from this press release published by businesswire.com the same day, but a few hours before it appeared on BizJournals. The same article was available on their official website as well, that has been removed, but one can easily see on Google. GSS ^💬 07:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, Fails WP:NCORP. The subject in question does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 06:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Views have become more diverse since the first re-list; try a second re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please check significant coverage in Washington Examiner, Wall Street Journal, US News, TechCrunch etc. Madhaberisl (talk) 20:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Madhaberisl (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Let's see. The Washington Examiner reference contains no in-depth information on the company, and includes "quotations" from the CSO, the CEO of the rehab facility and a patient. This reference has no Independent Content and fails the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:ORGIND. This from the Wall Street Journal is based on a "news release" (says it in the opening sentence) and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This from US News is a mere single mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, this from TechCrunch is also a mere single mention-in-passing with no discussion on the company and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. None meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources give in-depth significant coverage to the subject of this AfD. GSS ^💬 08:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Rewrite and get rid of the COI issues, and maybe protect it to prevent them from editing their own article. Paid editing and COI problems will need to be cleaned up, but the WSJ and US News press mentions and organization history seem to show that it is just about notable, as it comparable to many other articles in Category:Addiction organizations in the United States. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ambrosiawater: COI is not the main issue here, the main issue is notability. Can you please explain how WSJ and a passing mention at the US News piece support notability under WP:CORP or WP:SIGCOV? Also, please take a look at these examples of trivial coverage and WP:OTHER. GSS ^💬 08:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - kind of hard to say but this is not really WP:MILL stuff, and other users mention WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. I am noticing some good results like [2] but others are also passing mentions. I think this one passes. MenfesKidus40 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2019 (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.