- 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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences
- Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The information in the article isn't verifiable because it was written only on self-citations instead of independent secondary sources. More, the subject perhaps isn't notable because it seems that there is no coverage in independent secondary sources at all. Renju player ( talk) 06:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep-- appears to have sources from more than one author/source. Lesion ( talk) 01:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This organisation lacks significant coverage in reliable source which is required by WP:ORG. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, hard to find sources, but i added a huffpo column to the refs (not filled out yet), and this book from them was companion to a turner broadcasting series. and Raymond Buckland gives an overview here. What i do know is that its a nontraditional research institute thats highly thought of in the fields of its interest. I think some more digging should find enough refs. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- You added a primary source; the huffington piece is written by one of the proponents. It does not contribute to significant coverage in secondary sources
WP:GNG The book is a primary source and not usable and irrelevant. Buckland, "a High Priest in both the Gardnerian and Seax traditions", publishing with a publisher who produce material for fringe proponents
[1] is not a reliable source with most of its material taken straight from the word of Noetic institute (much of it coming from
[2]. Even with that in mind, the coverage is only two paragraphs.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 09:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct. I am going to have to conclude that INS is really, really bad at having documented evidence of their notability, which i had presumed would exist given how prominent they are in their field.
if this is the best i can come up with, I think it should be merged to the institute creators as paragraphs in their articles.Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct. I am going to have to conclude that INS is really, really bad at having documented evidence of their notability, which i had presumed would exist given how prominent they are in their field.
- You added a primary source; the huffington piece is written by one of the proponents. It does not contribute to significant coverage in secondary sources
WP:GNG The book is a primary source and not usable and irrelevant. Buckland, "a High Priest in both the Gardnerian and Seax traditions", publishing with a publisher who produce material for fringe proponents
[1] is not a reliable source with most of its material taken straight from the word of Noetic institute (much of it coming from
[2]. Even with that in mind, the coverage is only two paragraphs.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 09:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep. If you search for "
noetic science", you get hundreds of news stories. They generally refer to this institute. Noetic research was discussed in Dan Brown's novel
The Lost Symbol (2009).
Epaminondas of Thebes (
talk) 17:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC) SOCK
STRONG KEEP. In philosophy this institute has had a major influence and its general notability is clearly established by any search for noetic science. Just because one guy is bad at Google doesn't make this non-notable. Saylors ( talk) 18:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Before one nominates an article for deletion, one should look for sources. It's not enough to say the article isn't well-sourced. One must be able to say, with a straight face, that having made at least some effort to find sources, the article cannot be sourced.
BLP's are an exception. If a BLP relies exlusively or near-exlusively on derogatory information from even reliable sources, it needs deletion, quick-like-a-bunny. Happily, this is not a BLP. So there's no deadline.
User:Saylors has it right. I'm not a big fan of "all caps." But the exasperation I hear in his all caps "Strong keep" and his sharp-toungued sarcasm about google-competency fall on receptive ears here. David in DC ( talk) 22:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your idea of significant coverage is actually coverage of Mitchell:
[3]. A one line mention of the organisation does not satisfy GNG.
IRWolfie- (
talk)
- Ummm, no. My edit summary said
I'd found one and I'd be back with more. After dealing with the duties of a suburbo-dad IRL,
I've followed through. I apologize for how long it took me to get back. You're right,
a full 15-hour gap between an edit summary promising to be back and following through on thatr promise quite reasonably strains some editors' ability to maintain an
assumption of good faith. I'll try to get my priorities straight next time. You know, given the strict deadline we face to rescue or eradicate this page and all.
David in DC (
talk) 15:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've been at this for much of a day now. I'm hoping any closer will review these edits and conclude that the initial rationale stated for this nom has been successfully addressed. Or that Renju player might consider withdrawing the nomination. David in DC ( talk) 22:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ummm, no. My edit summary said
I'd found one and I'd be back with more. After dealing with the duties of a suburbo-dad IRL,
I've followed through. I apologize for how long it took me to get back. You're right,
a full 15-hour gap between an edit summary promising to be back and following through on thatr promise quite reasonably strains some editors' ability to maintain an
assumption of good faith. I'll try to get my priorities straight next time. You know, given the strict deadline we face to rescue or eradicate this page and all.
David in DC (
talk) 15:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your idea of significant coverage is actually coverage of Mitchell:
[3]. A one line mention of the organisation does not satisfy GNG.
IRWolfie- (
talk)
Totally superfluous aside I'd like some style points for managing edits that connect William James to Dan Brown with only one degree of separation. Next to that, Six degrees of Kevin Bacon is mere child's play. David in DC ( talk) 15:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- This story looks like significant coverage to me: " Stars aligned: Astronaut's mission seeks to answer life's big questions". "Noetic science" is prominent in Brown's novel, and the phrase is a reference to this organization. Allah is an akbar ( talk) 22:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep- I did some Google searching and found about 50 articles in publications like ABC News, USA Today, BusinessWeek, Time magazine, NPR, MSNBC and many others. And while the coverage was often incidental I think the sheer volume of mentions (in addition to the 25+ sources already cited in the article) satisfies WP:CORP's requirement for "significant coverage". More in depth information is contained in these books [4] [5] [6] [7]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I chose keep, above, then merge, now im back to keep, with keithbob's extra refs and the news article found by Allah is an akbar about their connection to dan browns book. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Moree in depth information is contained in these books": Written by INS: [8]. Not reliable in the slightest: [9] "Inside, you will find the truth behind The Lost Symbol's history and myths, such as: ... The founding fathers of the United States--and their possible connections with secret organizations such as the Illuminati and the Templars... The meaning within the symbols of the Great Seal of the United States ... The identity of the Masonic "Great Architect of the Universe". [10] has already been discussed above, not reliable at all. [11] is also written by Noetic members and the book sales go to the noetic sciences as the link says. These are not reliable secondary sources, and not independent of the promulgators of the organisation, IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Their ideas may be mostly nonsense, but there is no doubt that the institute is notable, especially now thanks to Dan Brown. Coverage like this from NPR make its notability clear. Even before Dan Brown, there was an extended TBS documentary about the institute. Like it or not, nonsense can result in notability. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Lankiveil ( speak to me) 11:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences
- Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The information in the article isn't verifiable because it was written only on self-citations instead of independent secondary sources. More, the subject perhaps isn't notable because it seems that there is no coverage in independent secondary sources at all. Renju player ( talk) 06:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep-- appears to have sources from more than one author/source. Lesion ( talk) 01:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This organisation lacks significant coverage in reliable source which is required by WP:ORG. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, hard to find sources, but i added a huffpo column to the refs (not filled out yet), and this book from them was companion to a turner broadcasting series. and Raymond Buckland gives an overview here. What i do know is that its a nontraditional research institute thats highly thought of in the fields of its interest. I think some more digging should find enough refs. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 06:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
- You added a primary source; the huffington piece is written by one of the proponents. It does not contribute to significant coverage in secondary sources
WP:GNG The book is a primary source and not usable and irrelevant. Buckland, "a High Priest in both the Gardnerian and Seax traditions", publishing with a publisher who produce material for fringe proponents
[1] is not a reliable source with most of its material taken straight from the word of Noetic institute (much of it coming from
[2]. Even with that in mind, the coverage is only two paragraphs.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 09:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct. I am going to have to conclude that INS is really, really bad at having documented evidence of their notability, which i had presumed would exist given how prominent they are in their field.
if this is the best i can come up with, I think it should be merged to the institute creators as paragraphs in their articles.Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 16:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct. I am going to have to conclude that INS is really, really bad at having documented evidence of their notability, which i had presumed would exist given how prominent they are in their field.
- You added a primary source; the huffington piece is written by one of the proponents. It does not contribute to significant coverage in secondary sources
WP:GNG The book is a primary source and not usable and irrelevant. Buckland, "a High Priest in both the Gardnerian and Seax traditions", publishing with a publisher who produce material for fringe proponents
[1] is not a reliable source with most of its material taken straight from the word of Noetic institute (much of it coming from
[2]. Even with that in mind, the coverage is only two paragraphs.
IRWolfie- (
talk) 09:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 02:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep. If you search for "
noetic science", you get hundreds of news stories. They generally refer to this institute. Noetic research was discussed in Dan Brown's novel
The Lost Symbol (2009).
Epaminondas of Thebes (
talk) 17:31, 3 October 2013 (UTC) SOCK
STRONG KEEP. In philosophy this institute has had a major influence and its general notability is clearly established by any search for noetic science. Just because one guy is bad at Google doesn't make this non-notable. Saylors ( talk) 18:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep Before one nominates an article for deletion, one should look for sources. It's not enough to say the article isn't well-sourced. One must be able to say, with a straight face, that having made at least some effort to find sources, the article cannot be sourced.
BLP's are an exception. If a BLP relies exlusively or near-exlusively on derogatory information from even reliable sources, it needs deletion, quick-like-a-bunny. Happily, this is not a BLP. So there's no deadline.
User:Saylors has it right. I'm not a big fan of "all caps." But the exasperation I hear in his all caps "Strong keep" and his sharp-toungued sarcasm about google-competency fall on receptive ears here. David in DC ( talk) 22:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your idea of significant coverage is actually coverage of Mitchell:
[3]. A one line mention of the organisation does not satisfy GNG.
IRWolfie- (
talk)
- Ummm, no. My edit summary said
I'd found one and I'd be back with more. After dealing with the duties of a suburbo-dad IRL,
I've followed through. I apologize for how long it took me to get back. You're right,
a full 15-hour gap between an edit summary promising to be back and following through on thatr promise quite reasonably strains some editors' ability to maintain an
assumption of good faith. I'll try to get my priorities straight next time. You know, given the strict deadline we face to rescue or eradicate this page and all.
David in DC (
talk) 15:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've been at this for much of a day now. I'm hoping any closer will review these edits and conclude that the initial rationale stated for this nom has been successfully addressed. Or that Renju player might consider withdrawing the nomination. David in DC ( talk) 22:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ummm, no. My edit summary said
I'd found one and I'd be back with more. After dealing with the duties of a suburbo-dad IRL,
I've followed through. I apologize for how long it took me to get back. You're right,
a full 15-hour gap between an edit summary promising to be back and following through on thatr promise quite reasonably strains some editors' ability to maintain an
assumption of good faith. I'll try to get my priorities straight next time. You know, given the strict deadline we face to rescue or eradicate this page and all.
David in DC (
talk) 15:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your idea of significant coverage is actually coverage of Mitchell:
[3]. A one line mention of the organisation does not satisfy GNG.
IRWolfie- (
talk)
Totally superfluous aside I'd like some style points for managing edits that connect William James to Dan Brown with only one degree of separation. Next to that, Six degrees of Kevin Bacon is mere child's play. David in DC ( talk) 15:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- This story looks like significant coverage to me: " Stars aligned: Astronaut's mission seeks to answer life's big questions". "Noetic science" is prominent in Brown's novel, and the phrase is a reference to this organization. Allah is an akbar ( talk) 22:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Keep- I did some Google searching and found about 50 articles in publications like ABC News, USA Today, BusinessWeek, Time magazine, NPR, MSNBC and many others. And while the coverage was often incidental I think the sheer volume of mentions (in addition to the 25+ sources already cited in the article) satisfies WP:CORP's requirement for "significant coverage". More in depth information is contained in these books [4] [5] [6] [7]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I chose keep, above, then merge, now im back to keep, with keithbob's extra refs and the news article found by Allah is an akbar about their connection to dan browns book. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 00:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Moree in depth information is contained in these books": Written by INS: [8]. Not reliable in the slightest: [9] "Inside, you will find the truth behind The Lost Symbol's history and myths, such as: ... The founding fathers of the United States--and their possible connections with secret organizations such as the Illuminati and the Templars... The meaning within the symbols of the Great Seal of the United States ... The identity of the Masonic "Great Architect of the Universe". [10] has already been discussed above, not reliable at all. [11] is also written by Noetic members and the book sales go to the noetic sciences as the link says. These are not reliable secondary sources, and not independent of the promulgators of the organisation, IRWolfie- ( talk) 21:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Their ideas may be mostly nonsense, but there is no doubt that the institute is notable, especially now thanks to Dan Brown. Coverage like this from NPR make its notability clear. Even before Dan Brown, there was an extended TBS documentary about the institute. Like it or not, nonsense can result in notability. -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
- 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.