Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Procovery

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. Sourcing's been provided and the nom's not returned to answer the few questions .... so I'm closing as Keep (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 19:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procovery

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

Orphaned article whose subject fails WP:GNG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why might you feel the topic fails GNG? May I suggest that you use the search term "procovery" site:.gov on google search? Also use the search term "procovery" site:.edu on google search. You will come up with multiple government publications ([1][2][3][4][5]) and multiple educational institutions (like Columbia University, University of South Florida, Journal of Behavioral Health, St. Catherine University, University of St. Thomas) publishing journals and papers deeply discussing the topic. You may also try Google Books search, which throws up some lovely books discussing procovery ([6][7][8]). Finally, if you are really intending to take this topic up to FA status, type "procovery" on Google Scholar search. Some of the papers that discuss procovery are quite interesting. This listing in the Mental Health and Social Inclusion publication ranks a Procovery book amongst the top 10 books on recovery. It's a quite well researched topic. The article needs to be improved and structured using the available references. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ditto above by Xender Lourdes. It seems to easily meet notability and with multiple secondary sources. So much so should this be WP:SNOWed? (Sure, the article needs a lot of improving, but that is what we are all supposed to be doing.) Eno Lirpa (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2016 (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.