Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island View Residential Treatment Center

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. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Island View Residential Treatment Center

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

[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)

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) — Nzteoli (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 10:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve - clearly notable per WP:GNG and WP:CORP, with significant coverage online in WP:RS. For some reason, the nominator has pasted their previous objections to the cited references, including "Ref#12 not available.", despite the fact that I fixed that broken link during the discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Elevations Residential Treatment Center, and that repaired link already cited is significant coverage in the Salt Lake Tribune. Other WP:RS online showing notability include Deseret News [1], another Salt Lake Tribune [2], Slate (magazine)[3], Salon (website)[4].

Repeated claim of #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 another article from Deseret News on the state requiring the centre to improve their suicide prevention after a child hanged himself there [5], which is also pretty significant coverage of the organization. I'm struggling to WP:Assume good faith here: both articles have a history of removal of content about the centre's controversial history, sometimes including history referenced by WP:RS, and the nominator is a WP: Single-purpose account: see Special:Contributions/Nzteoli.

This nomination should also have been bundled with the original nomination per WP:MULTIAFD, but the nominator contends that they are separate organisations, despite clear evidence to the contrary. TMG^talk 10:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a new editor does not discredit me as wikipedia says every one is equal here. Your mention of less other edits does not make sense. Anyway, I let's talk about the topic only, the references you gave are still not establishing notability. The reference #1 in your message talks about a Dr. Phil and an incident, but Island view is mentioned as a passing mention. Desert news being reliable does not make the topic reliable due to his lack of depth. Reference #2 is about the same incident, it does relate to Island view as before but it is another passing mention. Reference #3 Island view mentioned as an example of institutions (even its new brand Elevations is mentioned) but neither are accredited with notability. Reference #4 a few quotations from people mentioning Island view and a statement discussing a culture where residential programs are discussed mentioning "Such as Island view" as an example. This does not make this business center notable. I merely nominated Elevations but your vote at the Elevations AFD lead me to review references of Island view and its eventual nomination. Due to that these were two separate AFDs. The evidence of the two orgs being a single org you are giving is a wikipedia page. After reading through the WP:RS, wikipedia itself is not a reliable reference. Let us stop pointing fingers and see what other editors have to say. You can improve the article as you voted but I think they are not notable. --Nzteoli (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further RS: HuffPost [6], The Wrap [7], Courthouse News Service [8]. TMG^talk 12:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability doesn't expire. This article serves as an important landing place for the controversy that took place at Island View. Too many people pushing a POV are trying to put that controversy onto the successor institution, Elevations. The drama took place at Island View, however, and it deserves to be curated appropriately. GetSomeUtah (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 13:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is supposed to have Elevations Residential Treatment Center merged into it per discussion, but this has not happened. I have my doubts about notability but I would need to look into things further. Mangoe (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've started merging, but have run out of time for now. Not much left, mainly merging duplicate references, fixing dead ones, etc. Also, several of the RS I linked to above aren't in the article yet, and I'll get to that soon too unless someone beats me to it. TMG^talk 18:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable and does not satisfy WP:GNG. The references are quite obviously self published, blogs. This is an obvious Press Release. The article does not satisfy WP:CRIME to have an article on the perpetrator. As WP:CRIME says "Where there are no appropriate existing articles [...on the event of the crime...], the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:". Both items noted for perpetrators are not satisfied. That leaves the article to have to be notable as a business. The business isn't notable.--103.255.7.2 (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — 103.255.7.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No, there are multiple reliable sources now, as noted above. Not sure why you're cherrypicking one of the unreliable ones. TMG^talk 09:04, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- TMG seems to be tagging every one as SPA, well I am not one, I have an edit history and an dynamic IP. A long editing history and really not on USA topics much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.255.6.84 (talk • contribs)
  - That's an excellent reason to create an account. TMG^talk 09:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia allows every one to edit, with or without an account. I never wished to create an account and there are many more experienced users sharing my philosophy. These arguments have nothing to do with this AFD. Let's not detrack the discussion. It would also be good if you do not edit or split my comments. I'll note to the admins that I have considered the latest version of the article before making my delete comment and I have still not been convinced to sway my views as the sources do not satisfy WP:CRIME or WP:GNG. --103.255.6.84 (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No point in merging in Elevations, which seems to be merely an ad for that place. Island View was another fly-by-night treatment center lacking notability. Fails at WP:GNG big-time. 198.81.129.195 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2018 (UTC) — 198.81.129.195 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: This article is backed up by blogs, not a reliable source. This subject matter is not noteworthy in the slightest. I agree with the poster above that this article does not satisfyWP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C585:1B00:285D:7C47:7101:E5B7 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — 2604:2000:C585:1B00:285D:7C47:7101:E5B7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: Island view is not notable as you can see all the references are self-published or with passing mentions or unreliable.This does not agree with WP:GNG. I agree with the previous two comments for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.212.128.180 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — 66.212.128.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete: Wikipedia should not be hosting articles that are backed up by blogs. There are multiple opinion sources that lack investigative impartial process. This does not meet the WP:GNG standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.81.7.171 (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC) — 96.81.7.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. No evidence of notability. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 18:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Maybe some !votes not from SPAs/socks as well?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 18:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The Mighty Glen above. Article meets WP:GNG and, after merge, contains a decent volume of content as well. --HunterM267 ^talk 23:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Provided some more third-party sourcing can be found and added.TH1980 (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent article improvements; appears to be best known for the lawsuits against it. The facility is defunct, so the page is unlikely to be used for promotion going forward. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is well-sourced with a mix of notable newspapers and legal filings. Newslinger (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2018 (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.