Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island View Residential Treatment Center: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
:::Ref#25 same as above. |
:::Ref#25 same as above. |
||
:::Ref#26 looks like a paid / advert review that is no longer available on site. |
:::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. Neither Elevations or Island view has established notability. --[[User:Nzteoli|Nzteoli]] ([[User talk:Nzteoli|talk]]) 09:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:43, 22 June 2018
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Island View Residential Treatment Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is about a treatment center that is mostly based on press releases, self published websites, unreliable sources like blogs and passing mentions. It does not pass WP:GNG. Apparently the company was acquired by a different owner which rebranded it to Elevations Residential Treatment Center. I have nominated that new page for deletion as well as neither of these articles are notable.
- So I request to Delete this article. Look at the references of the Island view article:
- 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. Neither Elevations or Island view has established notability. --Nzteoli (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)