Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YES Recovery

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 17:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YES Recovery

PROD'd by myself on April 27th. Just recieved a message on my talk page, contesting it's deletion. Since the author probably didn't see it during it's 5 day lifespan on PROD, I'm sending it here for further concensus. Original PROD reason: This 'movement' seems to be entirely created on Wikipedia. The forumsite in the external links crosslinks back to here. There is noindication of who is behind the movement. No vote. lightdarkness ^(talk) 11:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No notability, few web links, no citations. -- Kicking222 14:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. Mangojuice^talk 14:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a free webhosting solution... which is what it strongly appears wikipedia is being used for here. There is one external site [1], but even that doesn't meet WP:WEB.--Isotope23 15:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Not delete I have no pecuniary interest in this, but there are far less significant social phenomena referred to in Wikipedia, and in the case of this anonymous recovery group, there are special reasons given at[[2]] (which I hope will be read by people before voting here) to explain why certain kinds of "non-official", non-hierarchical self-help groups don't have what some editors might think are the "credentials" to exist. Consider "underground" movements in history ... just because their headquarters were not advertised nor their leaders celebrities, doesn't mean they didn't exist. I think the move to delete is too narrow in this case. Not everything real and useful in this world can be gauged by Google page ranking. YES Recovery is such a movement ... compared to, say, Alcoholics Anonymous which has a big head office and huge publishing industry. Wasn't Wikipedia itself not so long ago such an "underground movement" which could not be seen above ground according to such criteria as search engine mentions? My view of the original Wikipedia spirit, as I've always understood it, says "let it stand". It certainly isn't doing any harm or wasting bandwidth when people's lives are at stake. Cheers. Alpheus 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - The original contestor of the PROD has explained their rational, and has asked I link to it here. You can see the conversation here. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: there simply aren't any significant sources to verify this with. --Hetar 20:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete agree with Hetar (WP:V)--blue520 16:38, 12 May 2006 (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.