Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noetic Advanced Studies 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. J04n(talk page) 10:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noetic Advanced Studies Institute

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. All of the sources which mention this group appear to be primary and non-independent. The entirety of the article appears to violate FRINGE as well, thus requiring a complete rewrite for any sort of NPOV. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GROUP and WP:THIRDPARTY, If you didn't notice (and I believe you did) a majority of these sources are either from Mindspring, or regarding the Noetic theory rather than the Noetic Advanced Studies Institute. A search only found this, which is exclusively press releases. There is no coverage by any third party source. A definite delete, unless somebody else has a very compelling point to make ChaseAm (talk) 21:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cameron11598 (Converse) 21:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. The only claims to notability within the article are either to related sources (principally mindspring.com) or not reliable. Mcewan (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is this related to Institute of Noetic Sciences? if so then redirect, if not, delete.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, the organizations are unrelated to each other, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing relevant in google news or books. SalHamton (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the above, this article was restarted as a WP:COATRACK for BLPs of 2 "new age physics" researchers (see talk) and it has improved very little since then. Agricola44 (talk) 19:11, 8 April 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.