Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relate (Counselling)

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 keep. Yuser31415 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relate

Relate (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Seems to me like it might meet CSD:SPAM, but wanted a wider consensus on the article. Leuko 23:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Copied from the talk page

I didn't create this page but it is a large organisation and should be represented in wikipedia. SuzanneKn 22:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently someone changed the link and made it look like spam. Leuko 23:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Yes, please keep. It's a major organisation well known in the UK. --Auximines 23:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC) But actually, after looking at the correct website, it is a fee-for-service provider of counseling. Still seems like WP:SPAM to me. Leuko 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

(end of talk page bit)

• Speedy keep Obviously notable, but the current one-sentence article is shite. Improve, please. Totnesmartin 23:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - while it's only a one line stub, I'm not sure a charity can spam. Anyway, despite this being a nothing stub, Relate is definitely notable, it's the largest relationship counselling and sex therapy group in the UK, with about 600 offices around the country, and saw 150,000 people last year alone - it was formed in 1938 as the Marriage Guidance Council, changing its name to Relate in the early 1990s. Princess Diana was a patron. I can't believe this article is so bad, when you consider offshoots of Relate (such as British Association for Counselling and equivalent charities in other countries (such as Relationships Australia) have decent articles. The stub just fails to assert any notability, at all. Should be easy enough to flesh out before the close of this AFD, I'll take a look tomorrow. Couple of references: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Proto::► 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Couple? :) Totnesmartin 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Eight isn't a couple? (innocent) Proto::► 20:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Topics is notable, just isn't a very good article... yet. WjBscribe 05:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Nishkid64 19:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but add a suitable maintenance tag; it needs expansion. (Needs a more specific stub tag, too; I'm not well-versed in the options for that, so I don't want to go and add the wrong one) – Qxz 20:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Needs expansion, and per Qxz needs tagging for improvement, however certainly notable. ^Khukri 20:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  Given that it's been listed for six days, I'm not sure "speedy keep" is really an option :) – Qxz 21:02, 14 February 2007 (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.