Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elevations Residential Treatment Center

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. 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. 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]

Indeed, references should be improved, but as I wrote above there are WP:RS online, e.g. [5], [6], [7], [8]. It looks sufficient to me.

You wrote above that #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: it's an article from Deseret News on the state requiring them to improve their suicide prevention after some poor kid hanged himself there [9], which is pretty significant coverage of the organization. TMG^talk 10:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You also wrote above that #12 not available, it's a broken link to a Salt Lake Tribune article: here's the fixed link [10]. I'll fix it in the article now. TMG^talk 10:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The references that you gave do not have in depth coverage of the organization, they do have coverage of various incidents where the org has passing mentions. [11] ref that you gave says "That culture is visible even at Aspen’s most upscale residential programs, such as Island View..." such phrases make it clear that these are being taken as examples. This doesn't make the org notable. Similarly the unfortunate incidents about suicide or cases that justify negative perspective of such centers are also about those incidents. They dont make the org notable enough or a notable business. [12] this broken link that you fixed (thank you) too is a bare mention. They are very few to start with. The article is beefed up with various press releases and that doesn't create good faith. That would be a debate for Island view, but since the article itself says that the org had different owners and different name (just the same location), the merger doesn't make sense. You can give your arguments on the island view deletion if it is nominated (it should be nominated). But as far as Elevations go, I dont think it should stay live or be merged. Wikipedia should not be supporting PR. --Nzteoli (talk) 10:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The case against forking, and for a merge now, is evident from this article's first edit: [13] TMG^talk 11:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nominator User:Nzteoli, I notice that your third edit, half an hour after account creation yesterday, was to prod the article. Prod was contested by an anonymous editor; you then took it to AFD, but since then you have made almost no edits other than to this AFD. May I ask if you have any professional or personal connection with the subject?

Also, are you connected at all with the accounts Special:Contributions/Cmaebrowns or Special:Contributions/RosieM007? They are WP:Single-purpose accounts which have been repeatedly removing material in this article about connections between Island View RTC and Elevations RTC, and uncomplimentary claims about the centre before and after its name change. The use of WP:Multiple accounts is acceptable in some circumstances, but if you are using multiple accounts to edit, or have a professional or personal connection with the people who are using them, then please say so. Thanks, TMG^talk 12:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contesting the article, and I have more edits on other articles than I have here. I in general got interested in the topic and then I noticed that the two centers (or one with two names as you say), were posted on wikipedia but not notable. There are only two sides I saw in the edits, one was adding PR and other adding negativity and both have a conflict of interest. I on the other hand have requested for deletion of the article for its lack of notability. Those other people certainly can not be me and neither do I know them. Still, thanks for your concern and allowing me to clear my self from doubts by asking the question. Yes, I've been new on wikipedia and it was difficult nominating this page after the Prod process was objected (I messed the articles for deletion nomination up and had to correct it, hopefully it is showing up everywhere now)... but it's not that complicated, fortunately. I do have experience in treatment sector but I'm not claiming my experience over you to delete this article, I'm pointing out sources that are evident that the topic is a total PR. Let us keep this on topic instead of going into deletion of Island view or my history so that we can see what other editors have to say. I do recommend you change your vote to delete as well if you feel convinced that these centers should not just as yet be on wikipedia (maybe later when they are worth the site, they can. Wikipedia is a very good reference and should stay clean). --Nzteoli (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]