Talk:Eliada Home

United States: North Carolina Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Carolina portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Carolina (assessed as Low-importance).

National Register of Historic Places Low‑importance

	National Register of Historic Places portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in North Carolina may be able to help!
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other websites.

Upload

Edit Warring Confusion

Latest comment: 2 months ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, in the process of patrolling recent changes I've reverted edits which have clearly been made (and reverted) before. The information which keeps getting deleted, though properly sourced, relates to a company bearing the same name as the location this article is about. This article is not about the company itself, however I can see that this information could still be relevant if put under a suitable sub-heading. Alternatively, given that it is contentious, we could remove it under then notion that it is not WP:RELEVANT. I'd like to get as many opinions on this as I can. Harryb7 (talk) 15:30, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for starting a talk page discussion on this. From the other source (for the National Register of Historic Places): The Eliada Home is a youth home complex located on a hillside in the Leicester vicinity of suburban Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina. Every source we have talks about its purpose as a youth complex, and that was part of its registration as a historic place. Note that the person removing the information also wanted to add information about it being a youth complex, just in a promotional way. A subheading would be good, but I oppose removing it. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

The addition of the promotional text sets up the appearance that Eliada (Homes) is the entity that operates/operated the subject home. Based on that, it makes sense for the information to remain in the article—though, as you noted, in a separate section, and likely with clarification that neither of the homes closed were on this property (which is what it appears from the look at the newspaper article I got before the paywall closed on me).

On the other hand, if the current Eliada Homes can be shown to be separate from this property, then neither should the problems get mentioned, nor should anything be mentioned about the company that shares a name with the property. —C.Fred (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Eliada Homes website confirms their business address to be the one stated in the article. So I will create a new section for the business where some info and the controversies could go. Obviously, blatantly promotional text should still not be added and will be reverted. Harryb7 (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've just updated the article. I couldn't find any indication that the closed homes were off the Eliada Home site, and there was some indication that they were onsite, so I've left the 'controversy' para as is. Harryb7 (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2026 (UTC)Reply