Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metta Institute

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. KTC (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Metta Institute

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

Article about an organization for which only business listings, blogs and other non-reliable, non-substantive sources are available. Fails WP:ORG. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 100% not notable in any manner shape or form. promotional. ---- _nonsense ferret 17:53, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Google Scholar found two results here (the first is through a paper published by a member of Metta Institute and the second, the page is not available for viewing). Google Books also found this (minor mention) and this (minor mention through a book which Frank Ostaseski contributed to). Next, I began searching with the "core faculty" members and found this when searching with Charles Garfield. A search with Ange Stephens found this (recommendation from Stephens and a comment from Ostasesksi) which doesn't provide any previews but from what I see, it is not significant. I prefer to stay away from AfD debates that involve academics but if there aren't any third-party sources (which I haven't found), this article will simply read like an advertisement. I will establish my vote when other users have commented. SwisterTwister talk 20:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 00:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, founder is a major figure in the hospice care movement in the US. institute is reaonably notable, with the article as it exists being overly promotional and poorly written. User nonsenseferret| is incorrect, they do have some notability, the question is how notable are they? I have added references, which help. I know we dont have a NYT feature article on them, or a BBC report, or a bestseller. Within this institutes purview, they are highly notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

notability of the founder is irrelevant, since as is made clear in WP:ORG, notability is not inherited. In addition, I quote "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Within a particular "purview" is not the test we are meant to apply. ---- _nonsense ferret 20:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could find absolutely no coverage of this Institute from Independent Reliable Sources, and none is provided at the article or in this discussion. Founders, faculty and alumni are not a source of notability; notability requires coverage/recognition of the Institute itself. --MelanieN (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2013 (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.