This is an edit about the malibu model of rehab. a very important topic for those suffering with drug addiction. there is no reason to delete it as it is a revlant and vaulable topic.

please chill and let me finish itreagan 05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Right now, it qualifies for speedy deletion because it doesn't have any references or sources that back up what's said; the topic doesn't seem to have any particular notability, and none of the statements are verifiable by reference to comments by independent, arm's-length, third-party sources. Meeting those standards (click on the links for a more complete explanation) would be a good way to start. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

This page is under construction. Therefore, of course it doesn’t have all the verifiable links and references. They are in the process thus the reason for being under construction. If you truly desire an open exchange of legitimate information then you need to allow the process to work and not have a speedy trigger finger.

reagan 06:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If I had a "speedy trigger finger", this article would have been deleted yesterday; I hoped to have given you the time you needed to establish notability and document it according to the suggestions I left above. The references you've provided (for which I've just added the "Reflist" tag so that they can be seen) are incomplete; giving the name of a newspaper is not really sufficient to allow others to verify the citation (#1), and similarly with an incomplete URL (#2). The newspaper citation would need the date and preferably the name and author of the article, for instance. You may find the links I provided above, WP:RS in particular, to be useful in giving you the details of what kind of references are required. If there's something you feel you need help with, let me know. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Re the above -- I think I see what the problem is. You have provided direct links to websites but not linked them to specific points in the text, which is why I had a problem with the two references you provided. I'll see if I can help you with linking these more precisely. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've worked on the first citation, using the (citeweb) style, to see if I can make it more like other Wikipedia citations. I have to log out for a little while but will be back to work on the remainder of the references; anyone who wants to help or improve is of course welcome. (I don't fix cites all that often.) Accounting4Taste:talk 17:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

thanks i'm still learning, i was surpised when the deletion came up so quickly. will try to get the info in quicker. reagan 18:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagan0005 (talk • contribs)

And I apologize if I, and everyone else, seemed too quick off the mark; new articles around Wikipedia are subject to a surprising amount of scrutiny from people who are anxious to delete things that are inappropriate. You would be amazed at the amount of nonsense that streams into Wikipedia every day in the form of new pages like "Chris is a poo head", or whatever, and so people on "new page patrol" do tend to have itchy trigger fingers. Now that it's clear you're seriously trying to contribute a worthwhile article, I -- and, I'm betting, every other editor -- want to help you however possible. I'm still tied up but I promise I'll come back to see if I can help you fix the references. Don't hesitate to leave me a note here or on my talk page if you have any questions or problems. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The notability of this topic is the fundamental shift away from the traditional mode of 12 step rehabs to one where the entire person dynamics are healed. Given that there are more than 30 million addicts and untold millions surfer from drug addiction I think that this is certainly notable. reagan 06:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have not been able to find anything on the internet about a "Malibu Rehab Model" or a "Malibu Rehabilitation Model." Is it known under a different name or term? Kingturtle (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

use this link to see the basis of the model http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/1789/1/Rehab-of-the-Rich-and-Famous/Page1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reagan0005 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link. Providing it makes my following comment late, but I think it bears mentioning regardless: Reagan0005, I think what these editors are trying to tell you is that even new articles must establish some basic claim to notability or they may be deleted. It is incumbent upon the originator of the article to do so. Although it certainly doesn't have to have all the links necessary to complete the article, it should have at least one link up and ready as soon as it is introduced, that way those of us toiling on the new page patrol (thanklessly and putting up with all kinds of baloney) don't have to fish around the internet to discover if or not the subject qualifies as encyclopedic. And although I empathize with the suffering of addicts (I honestly do), that suffering does not instantly make an article about a particular treatment modality notable. It looks like this one has notability; good; I have moved it into the article. Next time it may be more fruitful (and less painful for all involved) if such a reference is provided up front so that the rest of us can distinguish notability from snake oil. Thanks, --Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

thnaks for the info and suggestion. reagan 01:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is based on an informal term and does not describe a clinical model of any kind. The only reference given to support of the article refers to the "Malibu Model," not "Malibu Rehab Model." No other references to either term were found during a web search. It is questionable whether this article is about a topic in which notability can be sufficiently documented with qualifying reliable sources.

The content as currently written is mostly unsourced, highly POV and promotional of the non-notable Stone Eagle Retreat, which has an article also created by the same user (Special:Contributions/Reagan0005|Reagan0005). After painstakingly cleaning up the POV content with explanations for each step, Dacacci restored the POV content without explanation or references. When an admin reverted Dacacci's revert, this editor again restored the POV content without explanation. It is possible that these editors have a conflict of interest regarding this topic and/or the Stone Eagle Retreat. Toounstable (talk) 00:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply