Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrate 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 was Keep. (non-admin closure) Gongshow ^Talk 01:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate Recovery

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

Article is promotional and unencyclopaedic. It reads like a Sunday school handout. Jschnur (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several news sources discussing the program, as well as book sources like this. Passes WP:N. Style issues are not a matter for AfD. -- 202.124.74.41 (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to go out on a limb and call the then-current President of the United States an independent reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if serious cleanup is performed on the article. It meets WP:N, but it fails WP:NPOV completely. Nominator's "Sunday School Handout" description is pretty accurate, but per above, that is not an AfD issue. Sleddog116 (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But condense to a one-paragraph stub. Most of the article is original research and synthesis based on primary sources. First Light (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three out of four comments above have convinced me that I was in error in nominating this article for deletion. However I believe a disinterested and experienced user should be invited to clean this article up along the lines suggested by Sleddog116 and First Light . How do we do this? Jschnur (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, I did it - I condensed the article to what is available in neutral, third-party, reliable sources. Not surprisingly, some of the material in the reliable sources doesn't jibe with the more promotional tone of the older version. And, I'm about as disinterested and experienced an editor as we could likely find to do this. First Light (talk) 02:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So much better now. Good job. Jschnur (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is Christian version of Twelve-Step Program. The present text looks good to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2012 (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.