Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Carlston Academy

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 Draftify. for incubation and potential improvement. Recommend going through AfC to avoid G4 issues if returned to mainspace. Star Mississippi 23:11, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Carlston Academy

[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)

Does not pass

The Wikipedia Library. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Keep and draftify As it makes life easier! ~~I have to agree, also it rather reads like an attack page...~~ Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is being worked on so let's move it to the draft page. There are more sources to incldue. Farr4h2004 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this school, there is independent coverage on the school that is notable. There is the Refinery article and additional ones.

https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2021/06/10401693/troubled-teens-programs-industry-problem

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/wilderness-therapy-camps-paris-hilton-b1984632.html Farr4h2004 (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent source came up in my search. The whole relevant content in it is just "She spent the better part of the next two years at Eva Carlston Academy, which is viewed as another cog in the TTI machine." That's not

significant enough a mention to demonstrate notability. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Multiple articles about it being a notable TTI program and featured in articles seems to be notable. Farr4h2004 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as per
HighKing⁺⁺ 20:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I do think the "attack page"-iness can be addressed in draftspace, but I don't think this article has enough potential notability for draftification to be the right move here. I'd gladly endorse your position if one more NCORP-compliant source appears during this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me, if another NCORP-qualifying source appears, this topic just about NCORP meets notability and I'd !vote to Keep. Which is why I think Draftify is a better option right now - for that reason and the re-balancing.
HighKing⁺⁺ 11:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
The school is receiving notability in the news https://www.sltrib.com/news/2022/06/21/utah-man-flips-off-his. This article is solely about the school. So there are several article about it now. Farr4h2004 (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, Farr4h2004. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point on draftifying, HighKing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to vote Keep 1keyhole (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm now a Keep on this, as a second NCORP-compliant source has been published and mentioned above by Farr.~~ I'd withdraw and speedy close as the nominator, but can't do so since there has been another delete !voter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the second source is NCORP-compliant but it's marginal. And as noted above there are serious enough issues that I'd prefer to see improvement happen outside of mainspace. I'm changing my !vote to Draftify. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve. Not in good shape at this moment. Wareon (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The SLT article appears to satisfied some here that it meet NCORP. The article is about a neighbourhood protesting the school's proximity. My issue with this article is that to establish notability, it must contain in-depth information about the organization from an unaffiliated source (as per
HighKing⁺⁺ 20:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Hi
HighKing. I'm thinking the first few paragraphs of the section "Eva Carlston Academy moves in" are significant enough coverage. Do you disagree? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Hi
HighKing⁺⁺ 10:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough. I think there's enough other stuff there, even without the line that is attributed to their site. We can glean:
When ECA got its license
Where the first facility was
Expansion to three facilities in the first few years
Year of purchase of Olympus Cove facility
Protest from Olympus Cove residents
Staff responses to the protests
Entire history of the court case over the stalking allegation
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and require the article to be approved through an
WP:NCORP, but time in development could reach that point eventually as more sources emerge.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - sourcing is poor, and has serious
WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Draftify. Reluctantly. I'm not certain this is notable as I can only find the one source that would go to
WP:ORGCRIT, the refinery29 article. It has passing mention elsewhere. I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do to have an article on each institution of this type, though certainly the category of institution is notable. FalconK (talk) 02:54, 3 July 2022 (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.