Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathways Health and Research Centre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 I find the arguments for deletion convincing. Expecially the ones pertaining to BLP and NN/Advertising. Result is delete.. Mercury 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pathways Health and Research Centre

Pathways Health and Research Centre (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:SPAM. There may be some notability here, but this entire cluster of articles have been created as blatant advertisement by this organization as evinced by the single-purpose usernames used to create and edit these pages even after others have been closed for the same reason.

Paula Barrett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
Friends for Life Program (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
FOCUS program (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
FUN FRIENDS (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

(some of these are also up for speedy but are included for completeness)

-- Dougie WII (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete and Comment that FUN FRIENDS was deleted just two days ago. The articles have been created by single-purpose accounts, so problems with WP:COI and WP:NPOV Whitstable (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete All: Per the above comments. Clearly NN, advertising, which is probably caused by the COI. The references in some of these aren't reliable, and others are not really directly related to the subjects. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is a treatment protocol. It's appropriately documented. Although I agree w/the COI issues, that's not reason enough to delete them. I have twice declined to speedy delete this. - Philippe | Talk 03:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - This article was written by me. I have never used wikipedia to create or edit an article before and any problems are due to inexperience. All the information in these articles are purely factual. I am struggling to be able to see why these are considered advertising. Perhaps instead of deleting the entire article the specific sentences or references which are problematic could be drawn to my attention? How can i make these articles acceptable as I have no intention of using them as advertisements and merely wish them to inform. PathwaysAustraliaHRC - (Talk) 04:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, but allow creator a chance with a new username, contract, and topic-ban. She claims she's inexperienced, and I see no reason to not assume good faith. However, she needs to read up on COI and out username policy (including a trip to Wikipedia:Changing username) and not edit articles in topics she'd be directly involved in. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Pathways Health and Research Centre, delete the rest and merge them into that article. The supplied sources suggest to me that this organisation does meet notability, but it certainly doesn't need this many articles; all its programmes can be covered in one article, and that one seems the most appropriate. Terraxos 02:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all but PathwaysPer Terraxos. Separate articles are not needed for the others. Jmlk17 08:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  • thanks for the advice everyone, I have merged all the articles into pathways health and research centre. If there is anything else I can do to improve it, please let me know. Thanks again I really appreciate your help with using wikipedia. PathwaysAustraliaHRC - (Talk)10:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.60.63 (talk)

Hi everyone, I am friend of the original article creator with lots of knowledge of the subject matter, but also a wikiholic and i very much understand the criticisms of past pages. I am in the process of drastically editing the pages back to relevant encylopedic detail. I am leaving focus and friends (incorporating fun friends) as short articles as they are actually fairly independent of pathways - pathways just does some propogating relating to them. Indeed, they were being used 10 years before pathways existed. I am also up for the possibility that pathways does not reach notability and have cleaned it up but i am willing to concede that it could go.The independent Fun friends article can be deleted though. Does anyone have any objections to this? - Tom Heard 124.185.60.63 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.60.63 (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete Paula Barrett as unverified WP:BLP, autohagiography. The others might be kept as Weak keeps. BLP's require a much higher standard of citation. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete all - this suite of articles has been written for promotional purposes. Lacks the necessary secondary sources to meet WP:N. There is prospect of a new, encyclopaedic combined article being produced but it would need inline sources and some objective analysis. TerriersFan (talk) 01:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, insufficiently notable - lacks coverage in secondary sources. Other than the centre's home site, the external links provided don't talk about the centre very much at all. They talk about Prof. Barrett and her programs, but not the centre. PKT (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My opinion on the following:
  • Pathways Health and Research Centre - Weak keep notability is established, though it appears to be somewhat WP:COIish.
  • Paula Barrett - Speedy delete per WP:BLP
  • Friends for Life Program - Delete as likely WP:COI violation.
  • FUN FRIENDS - Delete as likely WP:COI violation.
  • SALT the other three to prevent recreation.
Maser (Talk!) 02:56, 11 December 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.