Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement


 * 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. There is consensus that enough academic coverage to demonstrate notability has been dug up. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Mindfulness-Oriented Recovery Enhancement

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Notability. I would point out that what looks like an impressive list of references is largely composed of things co-authored by the inventor of this technique. Unsurprisingly it smells of spam. TheLongTone (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep — Mentioned in independent third party reviews, for example: Boghog (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I can see why TheLongTone nominated the article for deletion, because they probably ran into the same problem I initially had. Google searches including Google Scholar and Google Books are filled with an overwhelming amount of non-independent publications by Garland, or are trivial mentions that give MORE as an example of types of mindfulness-based interventions but without further context. It's hard to dig through all of that noise to find useful third-party sources that aren't trivial mentions. However, Boghog's sources do meet that standard and there are some books (example, specifically pages 253–254) that do go into more detail than just giving the name and citing Garland's paper, so I do think this article's subject does meet WP:GNG due to the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - After digging Google a bit I found GOV sources like This and  which kinda shares some spotlight on it being notable enough to be considerable as a Keep.  Suryabeej      ⋠talk⋡    10:53, 3 October 2022 (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.