Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of Noetic Sciences


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 09:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Institute of Noetic Sciences
Unaccredited institute of unknown importance. Has various pseudoscientific claims that make it questionable. Note the article reads the insitute "studies on the efficacy of compassionate intention on healing in AIDS patients." Arbusto 20:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - The Institute of Noetic Sciences is an important organisation that has been in existence for many years. The article does need work but that is no reason for deletion. - Solar 20:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How it is "important"? To who? Why? Arbusto 20:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is important within the field of parapsychology as a major source of information on and research into psi phenomena. Best selling author Dean Radin who is also notable for his contributions to the understanding of psi is the Laboratory Director. If you take a look at the What links here log you will see there are around 26 relevant links to this page, underlining its notability. Your POV that the institute makes "pseudoscientific claims" would still not be grounds for deletion within Wikipedia policy even if it were in fact true. There are many eminent and respected scientists that support research into psi, including for example Noble prize winning physicist Brian Josephson. The claim that all psi research is pseudoscience is simply unfounded and usually comes from pathological skeptics from disciplines that are not members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest scientific organisation in the world. Parapsychology on the other hand is fully recognised by the AAAS, which demonstrates it is not in fact a pseudoscience. - Solar 21:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Parapsychology is considered a pseudoscience and is basically a dead field, I mean only one person has ever been given a PhD in the subject. It is very telling that the the most important member of this "institute" lost his job from a real university.


 * However, this discussion is about the institute. What sources do you have that prove notablity? Arbusto 21:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your POV about parapsychology, I have already mentioned that the field is affiliated with the AAAS, which proves it is not a pseudoscience. I would like to see proof to back up your 'opinion'. We all know that the word 'pseudoscience' is used by pathological skeptics, but this does not make it a fact. Most scientists with an interest in psi gain their PhD's in the wider field of psychology, which can include parapsychology. Ad hominem arguments like mentioning Dean Radin lost his job demeans this whole debate. I think I have already shown enough to demonstrate the article is notable, I will now leave it for others to decide. - Solar 22:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This really isn't the venue to debate what is and isn't pseudoscience. Maybe this debate should be moved to the article's talk page. &mdash; ripley\talk 22:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, that will be my final comment, thanks - Solar 22:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please post academic/media sources that mention Institute of Noetic Sciences. Arbusto 22:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, and improve. It needs some balancing critical viewpoints in the article as it currently exists, but "this organization espouses pseudoscience" isn't a valid reason to delete the article. The organization exists, it apparently puts out information purporting to be research that at least some people find credible -- I see no reason it can't have an article when we have articles on Pokemon characters. Additionally, Google returns 150k hits  And, a quick Nexis search shows hundreds of mentions over the past few years, including several in USA Today, the Daily Mail of London, Washington Post, Arizona Republic and several California newspapers, upon a cursory glance. &mdash; ripley\talk 22:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This vote was solicited as proven here. Arbusto 22:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Solar did post a message letting folks at Wikiproject:Paranormal know this vote was occurring. That doesn't invalidate my opinion, however, and I might note that page you're citing is only a guideline, and the portions dealing with canvassing rather controversial. &mdash; ripley\talk 23:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Meat puppetry: . I'm curious. If this article is about "science" then why did Solar post to solicit votes at a "paranormal" discussion. More:Arbusto 22:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware meatpuppets and sockpuppets are quite different to making other members aware of an article for deletion. If I have broken any policies it was unintentional. As far as I am aware a meatpuppet is a user account created by a member of the public (a non-user) for the purposes of voting, informing other users the article is up for deletion is not meatpuppetry. As far as links, I do not feel I need to spend any more time on this debate as it is clear from the 26 or so wikilinks to the page and the connection to Dean Radin that the article fulfils inclusion standards. As user ripley mentioned pseudoscience is not grounds for deletion, so your initial reasons for nominating it are in fact dubious. I will not be commenting further as I have other areas to deal with, and I am confident that whatever other users decide will be the right decision. - Solar 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your reply makes little sense as I quoted the policy, and provided a link on your talk. Also see Wikipedia: discussion for what a meat puppet is.


 * Yes, that it is pseudoscience isn't grounds for deletion. However, claiming that it is science (when it isn't) isn't grounds for inclusion. Provide sources for inclusion. Arbusto 23:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read what a meatpuppet is, the policy you quoted refers to meatpuppets not users invited to post. Wikipedia policy is "A hard and fast rule does not exist with regard to selectively notifying certain editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view on their talk pages in order to influence a vote.". The policy goes on: "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice." Therefore posting to a project and two users seems to be well within policy. Please stop asking for sources they are not required to keep the page and I do not have time now to source them, if the debate is not clear in the next day or so I will see what I can find. - Solar 23:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Inviting people to post is votestacking and unacceptable. See among other relevant policies WP:SPAM. JoshuaZ 00:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have viewed the page you refer to and it seems to me the policy stats 'mass' talk messages are unacceptable, I can't see how two users could be seen as 'mass' posting. I feel that I have clearly shown that I acted in good faith and within Wikipedia policy as quoted above. I also stated above that "If I have broken any policies it was unintentional". - Solar 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize it was unintentional (and yes, only two might not constitute a SPAM problem, but there is still a more fundamental votestacking problem involved). This is more of a "please don't do it again" situation than anything else. JoshuaZ 00:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge whatever's worth saving with article on creator. Closing admins, please take note of attempts to votestack described above. --InShaneee 01:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I think they are kind of kooky, etc. However they are marginally notable in the realm of people who are kooky, pseudoscience and New religious movement related groups. See Google News results. I'd say they're about as notable as the Aetherius Society or Universe people--T. Anthony 02:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW I guess I should add my vote was very much not solicited. I'd heard about these people on a religious movement page years ago and on occasion I check the articles for deletion.--T. Anthony 02:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm switching to just keep as they get a fair amount at Google Scholar too. (Again I think they are kooky, but sufficiently notable kooky)--T. Anthony 03:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete A lot of people and things are associated with AAAS. But the office janitor doesn't have a web page.  The only independent source is just a description of the group. Montco 02:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as clearly notable. Exact phrase search on google gets 150k hits.. It even gets 10 hits with an exact name-search on googlenews . Group was founded by Apollo 14 Astronaut Edgar Mitchell who is notable in is own right.. At worst, delete with option to recreate a better article. ---J.S (t|c) 07:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, 692 incomeing links to noetic.org and 64 to shiftinaction.com thier other domain.  750 incomeing links... take it for what it's worth. I think that shows the website isn't just some fly-by-night. ---J.S (t|c) 07:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. There are plenty of third-party sources available. And, even though I'm confident the article will be kept anyway, I think Solar is getting a raw deal here. He didn't say, "Vote to keep"; he said, "Add a vote".  Isn't it reasonable to inform a Wikipedia project that an article within their scope of interest is up for deletion?  I would think they'd be the best people to judge notability. (And the project members do have the ability to think for themselves, you know.  They very well could have voted delete if they thought it was warranted.) Zagalejo 18:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A raw deal? He wasn't blocked; he was told not to do it again:

"It is considered highly inappropriate or unacceptable to advertise Wikipedia articles that are being debated in order to attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate. It is also considered highly inappropriate to ask friends or family members to create accounts for the purpose of giving additional support. Advertising or soliciting meatpuppet activity is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. On-Wikipedia canvassing should be reverted if possible." Arbusto 19:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think posting a message on the project page is "attracting users with known views and bias." There are a wide variety of opinions represented at the project page - some are inclusionists, some are deletionists, some believe in paranormal phenomena, some are skeptics, etc.  But, whatever, I'm not going to make an issue out of this... Zagalejo 19:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The two people notified were both people who had previously contributed to the article and the article fell into the scope of the one project notified. I can't see how that qualifies as meatpuppetry. I think solar was acting in good faith. ---J.S (t|c) 21:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Zagalejo and J.S, thank you for your support on this matter. The reality is that my three posts do not constitute a violation of policy as shown in the section I quoted. "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that "[t]he occasional light use of cross-posting to talk pages is part of Wikipedia's common practice." I think Arbusto is a bit confused over the definition of meatpuppetry, as J.S points out, posting on a project page and on two user pages does not qualify as meatpuppetry. Wikipedia policy also points out that light use of cross-posting is part of common practice, for example there is a debate on whether to delete Pathological skepticism presently taking place and I happened to notice that a user from that debate posted a notice on Project Rational Skepticism, without incident. I also note that the two users trying to make it seem that I have somehow broken policy are in fact often in email correspondence and have a POV interest in the outcome of this debate, so are far from neutral in the matter. This kind of behaviour towards someone acting perfectly normally within Wikipedia standards seems to me to be little more than a transparent attempt to invalidate the opinions of others in favour of an anti-parapsychology stance. This kind of behaviour undermines the NPOV policy and the fairness and fundamental principles of Wikipedia. - Solar 10:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The canvassing issue is controversial and you'll get different opinions about whether it's "votestacking" or "informing." The key in all cases, though, is whether or not the canvassing has become a campaign so wide-reaching that it's skewed a vote against what the average Wikipedian would believe, in other words, has become disruptive. Which this clearly has not. &mdash; ripley\talk 12:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per T. Anthony's Google News link. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have some interest in the field of pseudoscience, and I think the nominator's characterization of this outfit as "questionable" is extremely charitable.  It's organized crackpottery.  Nevertheless, it's one of the more notable crackpot organizations. JamesMLane t c 10:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Some may feel it is pseudoscience, and I myself expect it is, but it claims 35,000 members, has been around 33 years, and publishes a journal. As for vote solicitation, I just ran across the following: Found 10/27/06 at Requests for arbitration/Deir Yassin massacre: "Final decision: Communication regarding polls: 5) Users may communicate in a reasonable manner with other users regarding active polls which for one reason or another they feel the other users might wish to weigh in on. Pass 7-0 at 00:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)." The users notification was in the form "There is a discussion  going on about xxxx. Your participation would be appreciated."  It is not prohibited to notify people who have participated in a topic that there is an ongoing AfD or AfD review, although mass spamming is prohibited and it is best to notify both sides, without urging a vote on one side or the other.Edison 21:05, 27 October 2006 (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.