Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindfulness meditation


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Mindfulness meditation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

"Mindfulness meditation" is a Content forking of mindfulness (psychology). "Mindfulness meditation" properly means Vipassana, while "Mindfulness meditation" is now about "mindfulness", which is being covered by a range of articles: Mindfulness, Mindfulness (psychology), Vipassana, to name only three of them. Duplicating the existing articles does not add anything new to Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   11:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The page may be replaced with this redirect.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that the page also started as a redirect . Basically, "Mindfulness meditation" is based on one article in Time Magazine. It was substantially enlarged by copying material from "Mindfulness (psychology)" .  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Mindfulness meditation is a broad and worthy topic. "The meditation literature describes many different meditative prac­tices (Goleman, 1977; Shapiro & Walsh, 1984). Most reviewers of this literature have referred to two basic types of meditation practice: concen­trative meditation and mindfulness meditation (Smith, 1975)." It has made the front cover of Time. There are many types of sitting mediation - mantra, transcendental, loving kindness, Buddhist, insight, Vipassanā, Tibetan, Zen, shikantaza, satipatthana, etc etc. Each of these depends upon, and enhances, a degree of mindfulness, but each also has a different focus, and different goals or purposes (calm, Buddhist enlightenment, insight, positive emotions, martial arts success, etc). Overall, though, the literature - modern Western, and ancient Eastern - agrees that a major subdivision of the world of sitting meditation comes under the overall heading of "mindfulness meditation". This is not just a subdivision of modern psychology, nor is it always related to what is meant by the Pāli Buddhist term Vipassanā. It is a worthy topic in its own right, not 'owned' in present day English usage by any of these factions, yet it is practised, mentioned and discussed by millions of English speakers every day.. --Nigelj (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: funny, the headline for the Times-article is "The Mindful Revolution", not "The mindfulness Meditation Revolution". In the various types of meditation you mention, "mindfulness" is the translation of sati, on which there is also already an article. What you are calling here "mindfulness meditation" is "insight meditation", which is covered by Vipassana; while the article from Marlatt and Kristeller uses the term "mindfulness meditation" to refer to what is commonly known as "mindfulness". So you seem to be mixing up various meanings.
 * The "mindfulness meditation" article as it is now is about the western practice of "mindfulness". So what exactly do you propose "mindfulness meditation" should be about, that's not already being covered by existing articles?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you know? I wondered if someone would clutch at that straw. The full heading of the Time article is "Health | Meditation | The Mindful Revolution" It's an article about a 'mindful revolution' going on in the field of 'meditation', which itself is a sub-field of 'health', according to them it appears. Your views (and mine) about what "mindfulness meditation" is and is not, and what should be given WP:DUE weight in the article, are content matters, which should be dealt with on the article talk page. We are here to gauge consensus on the WP:NOTABILITY of the topic, so that we can settle down to editing it normally and collaboratively, and looking at the sources regarding issues like that, without a small group of people blanking it and shouting 'Delete' or 'Merge' all the time. --Nigelj (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Content matters"? If you want to discuss notability, we must first be clear what the topic is of which the notability is being dicussed. If the topic is "meditation as a subfield of health", then we're talking about western mindfulness, which is already covered in Mindfulness, duplicateed in Mindfulness (psychology), and "triplicated in Mindfulness meditation. So, how many articles on the same topic do you want?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the topic of the article was fairly evidently 'Mindfulness meditation'. Where you got the idea that it was "meditation as a subfield of health" is unclear, and not particularly relevant here. --Nigelj (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Mindfulness meditation" as in the popular secular practice, or "mindfulness meditation" as in Buddhist Vipassana meditation? In both cases, the topic has already been covered. "'meditation', which itself is a sub-field of 'health'" was mentioned by you.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I mentioned "'meditation', which itself is a sub-field of 'health'" as part of a description of what the Time article was about, not what the Wikipedia article ought to be about. I also followed the mention with two provisos, "according to them" and "it appears". I do not find this form of discussion interesting. --Nigelj (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's a pdf of the Time-article. Quote: "Mindfulness is rooted in Eastern philosophy, specifically Buddhism. But two factors set it apart". So, the Time's article is not about Buddhist Vipassana, but about western secular mindfulness. Which is covered now by three separate articles. The interesting part of the article is "MINDFULNESS GOES MAINSTREAM", about the growing popularity of (western) mindfulness. That's really interesting.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination proposes that the page be reverted to a version which redirects. This is ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Which means that another kind of procedure/discussion should be followed? Which one?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see Reverting and Alternatives to Deletion. Andrew (talk) 13:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But then we come back to redirecting or merging, c.q. gaining concencus, as in Talk:Mindfulness?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   15:59, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:MEDRS compliant sources such as Clinical Psychology Review (link) classify "mindfulness meditation" as a subgroup of meditation practices. In addition, NCCAM says:


 * "Mindfulness meditation is an essential component of Buddhism. In one common form of mindfulness meditation, the meditator is taught to bring attention to the sensation of the flow of the breath in and out of the body....Mindfulness meditation and Transcendental Meditation (also known as TM) are two common forms of meditation. NCCAM-sponsored research projects are studying both types of meditation. (link)"


 * This is clearly a highly notable topic with significant coverage in the mainstream media. -A1candidate (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Buddhist forms of "mindfulness meditation", namely Vipassana, Satipatthana and Anapanasati already have separate articles.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The poster here clearly says, '"mindfulness meditation" as a subgroup of meditation practices'. You list particular examples of Buddhist meditation practices as if they are a reason not to have an overall article on a subgrouping that has had, and continues to have a lot of coverage in social media, mainstream media, personal development marketing, and academic study, as a subgroup. --Nigelj (talk) 11:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In the case you want both Buddhist Vipassana meditation and western secular mindfulness being threated in one article, that's already being done in the Mindfulness article. The term "mindfulness meditation" is ambigue, and refers to both kinds of practice. The "coverage in social media, mainstream media, personal development marketing, and academic study" is about the secular, western practice. Which is already covered in "Mindfulness", duplicated in "Mindfulness (psychology)", and triplicated in "Mindfulness meditation". So, the point is not that there shouldn't be an article on this topic; the point is that one article per topic suffices, and that there was no need to triplicate this topic.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This paper (picked more or less at random) concludes that "Little to no relationship was found between mindfulness during meditation and everyday mindfulness across all three samples." Clearly modern western scholars can see a distinction between everyday mindfulness and mindfulness meditation. That there may be material in the Mindfulness article that would be better placed in the Mindfulness meditation article at some point in the future doesn't surprise me. All media and marketing coverage certainly is not solely about "the secular, western practice". I think that we have made our positions clear now. Continuing to repeat them, with or without misrepresentations of each others' statements, will not help the closing admin to decide. Please don't make comments that include a statement what it is that you think I want, so that I don't have to keep clarifying my position. --Nigelj (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree Face-smile.svg Thanks for the link; I'll read it. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge Per discussion elsewhere.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 5 July 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.