Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esselen Nation vs Esalen 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. joe deckertalk 03:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Esselen Nation vs Esalen Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The editor is using Wikipedia to grind an axe. The article is a soapbox for expressing an opinion and advocating a point of view about an issue specific to an individual Louise Ramirez and an organization OCEN. [She is currently the tribal chairwoman of the Ohlone Costanoan Esselen Nation (OCEN).] The author cites personal correspondence with Louise Ramirez, possibly revealing a personal relationship and a conflict of interest. The article does not describe a legal action or a specific ongoing social-political action that is notable. It accuses a living individual (Tom Nason) of taking actions that the author disapproves of without offering any sources, appearing to incite controversy. Substantive portions of the article are not supported by references, and based on the character of the article and initial searches, it would be very difficult to add reputable sources.

If there is a germ of notability, it may be about the about Esalen Institute's use of native American ceremonies, but this is insubstantial to justify an article (and certainly not this article), and based on available sources may only merit a couple of sentences in Esalen Institute. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 19:37, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. The long nomination statement pretty well sums it up. It's not an article, it's a soapbox. There's really only one ref supporting the topic here (Monterey County Weekly), the other refs are incidental. It might be reasonable to use the Monterey source to add some content to the Esalen Institute article, but I hesitate to suggest any sort of "merge" due to the major soapboxing/personal_correspondence_sourcing/other_issues. P.S. I looked at the Esalen Institute article. There is a big COI-OWNERSHIP issue there. Looking at the top editors-by-added-text, the current top six editors have either stated they worked there, or have usernames exactly matching employees, or are IPs that have admitted working there, or are IPs that look a heck of a lot like COI (IMO). They make up two-thirds of the editing, measured by added text. Alsee (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as soapbox per nom. references mostly dont mention this dispute. one does. deserves a mention in the articles on Esalen and Esselen, thats it for now. thats not to say its not an important issue, just not discussed enough to justify this article, or any article, at this time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT and WP:BOLLOCKS. While a court case such as this could become notable, currently this is an unmitigated mess. The lede alone needs a re-write, and much of it makes no sense whatsoever. I guess it's some sort of soap-box, but does that even matter in a case where the words make little sense? Bearian (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2016 (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.