Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karuna Institute (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Non of the keeps gave any policy based reasoning, delete rationales indicates this fails WP:V and WP:GNG Secret account 16:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Karuna Institute
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was kept at AfD in 2005, but notability standards on Wikipedia were far less developed at that time. Article has been tagged for notability since 2010. Article was improperly PRODed, which I declined procedurally, but it probably needs to be discussed again, particularly after being tagged for notability for four years now. Safiel (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as no clear reason for deletion has been given, merely quoting notability standards is not a reason of itself. On the other hand the previous Afd has given abundant reasons why it should be kept, all of which still apply. It is still true that " the institute offers professional qualifications in psychotherapy accredited by the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (which is one of two independent national accreditation bodies recognised for psychotherapists used by the UK National Health Service) and masters degrees accredited by Middlesex University". ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment The fact that the article has been tagged for four years for notability and nobody has felt confident enough to remove the tag is prima facie indication that there is at least a valid assertion of lack of notability. The institute may or may not be notable, however, from what I can discern from the article at the moment does not appear to establish notability. It is ALWAYS the 100% burden of those creating or adding to content to establish that such content is notable. Those impeaching notability carry no such burden. Right now, I am merely impeaching notability. If you can add reliable sources that indicate that the content clearly meets the notability criteria, I will be happy to withdraw this AfD. However, until that happens, at the very least, this AfD should run its course. Safiel (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, Safiel, we now have five reliable sources and no tags. Are you willing to fulfil your word and withdraw the afd or at least change your view on it being worthy of deletion? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * unless I'm missing something, the page has zero sources that help to establish notability. Primary sources, written by people affiliated with the organization, are automatically disqualified, as are brief mentions -- the sources have to be about the subject. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Secondary comment Regarding the first AfD nomination in 2005. While on the face it appeared to be a snow keep, very few actual arguments where made. Most of the keeps made no arguments at all. As such, I don't feel the first AfD should at all be influential in determining the current AfD. Safiel (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete It STILL is non-notable, I'm not even sure why the first AfD was "keep". Nine years later and the page remains non-notable and still is uncited. "This article does not cite any references or sources. (May 2010) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. (May 2010)" Those tags remain totally unaddressed.  Ogress  smash!  22:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment It was kept cos that is what every editor who contributed wanted, or are you suggesting the closer should have deleted anyway? The tag issues are now being addressed and I trust that you will thus contemplate changing your mind. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - we have long kept tertiary education institutions, and this one awards Master's degrees, because of their important status in society and the education system. The best way forward is to expand and add sources not to delete. Just Chilling (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * see comment below on this. It doesn't award master's degrees; Middlesex does. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep:Adequate notability established. Needs expansion, but that is not grounds for AfD. See WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Montanabw (talk)  21:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * - It hasn't, which is why this discussion exists. There are currently zero of the kind of independent, reliable sources required to pass [WP:GNG|notability criteria]]. Can you elaborate? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In your opinion, not mine.  Montanabw (talk)  06:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - We typically keep independently accredited degree-granting institutions of higher education, but I don't know that this qualifies. If you look at the fine print, it's accredited by a psychotherapy group, yes, but that doesn't let them grant degrees as far as I know -- it's their connection to Middlesex University that does so. In fact, if you look at their admissions application, you actually send it to Middlesex. Individual institutions under the umbrella or affiliated with a university do not themselves have any sort of sources-indifferent inclusion precedent. Indeed, it's not part of Middlesex University proper, but has to stand on its own with independent reliable sources to establish notability -- and I'm not seeing those. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the current references are to significant coverage in independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. I looked through all the Google searches in the Find sources links above without finding any either, and also searched on NewsBank, which gave 9 hits, but none to significant coverage: I initially thought this article in The Times (via Internet Archive) might qualify, but soon realised it concerns the Karuna Institute of Buddhist Studies in Taiwan, which is not connected to this institute in Devon. The other hits were mere mentions, most saying no more than that someone trained there. Qwfp (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2014 (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.