Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elevations Residential Treatment Center: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:53, 20 June 2018

Elevations Residential Treatment Center

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I nominated it for WP:PROD but an IP user removed it, incorrectly, saying that the article was notable because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. So I have nominated it for deleting under AFD process.

However, it does not pass WP:GNG; There is nothing extraordinary about this business - it doesn't qualify as a highschool rather its clearly a non notable business. The sources in the article are not enough to pass notability criteria. Some are bare mentions, others are self published and yet others are about incidents - but no indepth coverage. I noticed two sides (both very likely COI) debating various positive/negative facts but the topic itself isn't notable and the page has no place on Wikipedia. All sources are passing mentions, nothing indepth and the former institute at the same location appears to be a different business from different owners - also probably not notable but the current brand isn't notable anyway. So as I read on wikipedia policies, notability can not be inherited to this new brand. If other such centers have pages, they too can not be held as reason to keep this page. We must gauge notability. Nzteoli (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 08:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 08:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with Island View Residential Treatment Center. This article is a WP:CFORK of the latter, created in apparent good faith in 2015: [1]. Both articles have contentious edit histories, but that's not a reason for deletion. Article creator has been removing material about the centre under its former ownership and name, e.g. [2],[3], [4], when in fact there should be a single article about the centre. Definitely notable per WP:GNG and WP:CORP, with significant coverage online in WP:RS. TMG^talk 08:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Island View Residential Treatment Center is not notable either.

Ref#1 is "Certificate of Incorporation", incorporating doesn't mean it is notable. Ref #2

Ref#2 is self published / website.

Ref#3 says it is about the org's closure.

Ref#4 is not available (404 error), it is another feed item like above, clearly not a reliable source. It seems to be a self published blog.

Ref#5 is another feed item like above, clearly not a reliable source. It seems to be a self published blog.

Ref#6 is a visit report / email that has been published on a blog that further states on their home page that "Categories above include Paid Advertisers." The post evidently a paid post.

Ref#7 is a clear cut Press released on the same blog as ref#6, making it further evident that the blog is advertising island view. Not reliable.

Ref#8 is a preview of Island view's own website.

Ref#9 is from Securities and Exchange Commission, registering a company doesn't make it notable.

Ref#10 is an op ed, mostly negative, nothing that establishes notability.

Ref#11 is passing mention and the news is about an incident that happens to be of a student of the org, not of the org.

Ref#12 not available.

Ref#13 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability.

Ref#14 another self published / "about us" preview.

Ref#15 not available, title says it is a visit report.

Ref#16 not available but the link from utah govt site seems to be unrelated ref bomb. It would not be a secondary source anyway.

Ref#17 org's own website preview.

Ref#18 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability, no depth of coverage. Not a secondary source anyway.

Ref#19 is another blog Press release.

Ref#20 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability, no depth of coverage. Not a secondary source anyway.

Ref#21 this one is about litigation against Island view, even the negative coverage / passing mentions do not amount to the depth required for WP:GNG.

Ref#22 just like above.

Ref#23 WP:FAKE does not mention island view or elevations.

Ref#24 it is the same as Ref#21.

Ref#25 same as above.

Ref#26 looks like a paid / advert review that is no longer available on site.

Above analysis of references prove lack of notability of Island view. The pages should not be merged because Elevation appears to be a brand at the same location by different owners ie. a different organization. Now that both topics are not notable, merging is a futile exercise. Both should be deleted. As far as this discussion goes, Elevations has not established notability and as I have read on wikipedia, this discussion has to be finalized on facts. --Nzteoli (talk) 09:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 :::Ref#19 is another blog Press release.
 :::Ref#20 a US court case, does not even remotely establish notability, no depth of coverage. Not a secondary source anyway.
-:::Ref#21 this one is about litigation against Island view, even the negative coverage does not amount to the depth required for [[WP:GNG]].
+:::Ref#21 this one is about litigation against Island view, even the negative coverage / passing mentions do not amount to the depth required for [[WP:GNG]].
 :::Ref#22 just like above.
 :::Ref#23 [[WP:FAKE]] does not mention island view or elevations.