Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spirit Rock Meditation Center

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit Rock Meditation Center

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

non notable center. The references are either local or mere mentions, or both together, so it cannot be described as :nationally recognized", except that is nationally recognized that it exists. That's not enough for notability. The wording seems quite promotional for the method of meditation taught there, but tI suppose that might be inevitable. There's extensive name-dropping of famous people who gave a presumably one-time talk there , that's characteristic of such articles, but it's linkspam. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established by the New York Times; it's described by the Washington Post as one of the biggest US retreat centers; an article on SRMC in the San Francisco Chronicle states "Now in its silver anniversary year, Spirit Rock has become a leading Buddhist meditation center, a stop on the Dalai Lama's visits to the Bay Area, and a collaborator with Stanford, UC Berkeley and Silicon Valley in research and discussions about melding mindfulness with neuroscience, sociology and technology." Other coverage includes Los Angeles Times, CNN, Travel + Leisure, National Geographic, PBS, and in several articles in the Huffington Post. I agree that the tone of the article is promotional, however, and I don't want to wander into overkill -- I should instead be editing it, particularly since I approved it at AfC. JSFarman (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JSFarman and my own investigations; There are enough sources not only to establish notability but to allow for a NPOV rewrite of the article which, there's no question, it could use. I added a few sources, but there are many more. The SF Chronicle called it "the Bay Area's best- known centers for Buddhist meditation." Does that not, along with the rest of the evidence, make it likely that it meets the GNG?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2014 (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) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KeepIt certainly could use an NPOV makeover, but I'd judge its notability based on its prominence within the global/national Buddhist meditation context and the prominence within that community of those who taught/learned/visited there. A quick Google search for "Vipassana" gets links to this place in the 5th & 6th items and it's the only physical location mentioned on the first page, which seems reasonably prominent by this crude measure. I disagree with DGG's suggestion that Vipassana is merely the style taught at Spirit Rock; my limited understanding is that it's a significant style of Buddhism and a major element of American Buddhism. If my bias from being a local who occasionally visits Spirit Rock disqualifies me from voting, feel free to remove this vote.Wcoole (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the lead sentence of Vipassana is to be believed, we ought to not only not disqualify your vote, but actually let you use it to close the discussion: "Vipassanā (Pāli) or vipaśyanā (विपश्यना, Sanskrit; Chn. 觀 guān; Tib. ལྷག་མཐོང་, lhaktong; Wyl. lhag mthong) in the Buddhist tradition means insight into the true nature of reality."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:49, 24 February 2014 (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.