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 delete. ✗plicit 08:49, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon School and Residential Treatment Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I PRODded this without realizing that it had previously been prodded and recreated (in 2009). Anyway, the rationale still stands: "As a private school, has to meet WP:NORG. No reliable independent sources are provided, and I was unable to find any through WP:BEFORE. Minor local awards are not significant." Spicy (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 08:20, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As the nominator says, private schools (I have my questions as to if this place even counts as one) have to pass WP:NORG and this article clearly doesn't come anywhere close to meeting NORG. Receiving some awards definitely isn't enough to do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete: per G4. If the deprodder is claiming that this is ineligible for PROD because it is a recreation of a previously deleted article, then it should be G4'ed. If it was not an identical copy of the previously deleted article, then the rationale was invalid. In any event, this version has never met the GNG. Ravenswing 16:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: NORG applies to for-profit schools. This is a narrow category, in which most pre-university private schools in the West are not included (there are quite a few in developing East and Southeast Asian economies, though). No opinion here at the moment -- independent of the subject's notability, the article is risibly promotional for something in such a controversial cross-section of 'education'. Vaticidalprophet 13:25, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed it does. Nowhere in the article is it claimed that this is a non-profit. Ravenswing 20:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to their website they are "an approved private special education program." That's all I was able to find about it. I assume if they were a non-profit they would be a public organization. That said, from what I can tell they aren't really a school in the way the notability guidelines or Wikipedia more generally considers something a school anyway. Just having the word "school" in the name doesn't make it a school. Especially since they don't even call themselves a school. At least not from their webpage or in the material about them that I've read. So they should be treated exactly like every other organization regardless of where their funding comes from. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RTCs are...complicated. It's plausibly worth calling them schools; most don't pass GNG, unlike most schools, so treating them as such doesn't flood you with articles. Having articles like this on them is a terrible idea, though. I note that even our Residential treatment center article is pretty lame, and jarrs around almost randomly in its tone. Vaticidalprophet 03:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty curious, in what instance would it be plausibly worth calling treatment centers schools? I admit there's a thin line between an education establishment more generally and a school, but wouldn't they just be like normal treatment centers, which aren't considered colleges/universities, except that they children instead of adults? Also, Residential treatment center is probably pretty lame because Wikipedia is horrible at handling extremely general topics, because there's to much room for meandering and going on side tangents with topics that aren't extremely specific. As their impossible to summarize in a coherent, succinct manor. Let alone do the camping, revert everything editors on here usually let anyone try to write succinct articles. At least that's been my experience. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete because of the previous AFD. I also found nothing from a WP:BEFORE check, and I see no reason to believe that a treatment center with less than 100 students has enough independent secondary sources to merit an article. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2021 (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.