Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Noetic Sciences (2nd nomination)

Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences

(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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- appears to have sources from more than one author/source. Lesion (talk) 01:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the quality of the sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This organisation lacks significant coverage in reliable source which is required by WP:ORG. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep. If you search for "noetic science, you get hundreds of news stories. They general 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)[reply]