Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Wellness 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. Discounting the opinion by the self-described paid contributor for what I would hope are obvious reasons.  Sandstein  20:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

National Wellness Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

One of a group of related paid articles. There is no evidencethat the institute is notable. The references are either its own publications, o press releases, of notices and advertisements. Or for ref. 3, a statement that a notable organization has adopted the same definition of wellness that the Institute uses.  DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches have found nothing better and the current article is not better convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  05:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The organisation is nearly forty years in existence and is recognised as a leading American organisation if the field of wellness, as shown by the frequency with which it is cited by authors in this field (examples listed below). A number of its present or ex-senior management are also notable figures in the field of wellness, including Bill Hettler, William Baun, and Meg Jordan. The National Wellness Institute is one of the organisations active in efforts to bring in a national accreditation for professional health and wellness coaches in the US, which have included a national summit on the issue. Participants at this included GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Medical School, Mayo Clinic and American Occupational Nurses Association. The NWI's national conference is an annual event that has included notable speakers and attendees such as Mike Huckabee, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Patch Adams, Geoffrey Canada, Barbara Fredrickson, David Katz, Candice Pert, Herbert Benson, Joan Borysenko, and Richard Davidson. NWI has been used as a point of reference in a large number of publications, including (but not limited to): Encyclopedia of Adolescence, Prevention Practice - A Physical Therapist’s Guide to Health, Fitness, and Wellness, Team-building Handbook: Improving Nurse-to-nurse Relationships, Health, Tourism and Hospitality: Spas, Wellness and Medical Travel, Lifetime Physical Fitness for Wellness - ‘The premier site for college and university programs and assessment tools', Health and Wellness for Life, Health Promotion and Wellness - An Evidence-based Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, Survey of Athletic Injuries for Exercise Science, Health Promotion and Aging: Practical Applications for Health Professionals I was the original writer of the article and was a paid contributor Fbell74 (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , your subjective judgment of the importance of the organization is inevitable affected by the fact that you were, just as you say, paid by the organization to write the article. As for distinguished people attending or speaking at their meetings, not everything that a Senator does is intrinsically notable--they inevitable attend many non-notable events as well.  DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would point out that the comments I made are related to the merits of retaining the article rather than being opinion based. Certainly, notable people, such as senators and the others that I mentioned do attend and speak at both notable and non-notable events. If this was the sole basis for notability, then it might not be enough. However, this is part of the larger picture. Separately, I believe (and this is an opinion) that it would be of interest generally to know that one or other of these individuals has been associated with the National Wellness Conference. For example, I was quite surprised that Mike Huckabee had been a keynote speaker, as I hadn't imagined him as a wellness type of person. Fbell74 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Royal broil  02:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 *  Weak Keep - Reference #2 is the only thing holding this up, as it appears to be a reliable source that is citing this organization as being a reliable source. Personally, I don't care that someone paid to have it created as long as it isn't an advertisement (and this clearly isn't written as such), but it is important that a 3rd party independently references the organization as being of interest. It seems that this barely scrapes by on that standard. Fieari (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you mean reference 2 in the article, which is a local newspaper,or the second reference in the list above. Prevention Practice.. a book in only 137 libraries by an author who has writtennothing else, a/c WorldCat. One such source is not enough for 1notability DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My original comment referred to ref2 in the article, which granted, is a local paper, but it's not reporting on a local topic. On that basis, I said weak keep, maybe even very weak.  On the books listed above, the list was enough to upgrade my vote to keep.  I'm finding that each of the books listed do cite this organization, and that while some of them are smaller printings, none of them are vanity presses and they can be found in some major libraries.  Are you suggesting that an academic book should have a bestseller-like print run to be considered reliable? Fieari (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing vote from weak keep to keep, in light of the additional sources provided by Fbell74, above. If reliable sources cite this organization as a reliable source, that should fulfil notability requirements. Fieari (talk) 03:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an advertisement, created by a paid editor in order to publicise the institute. Wikipedia does not allow advertisements, of any kind, anywhere. Paid editing of articles is very strongly discouraged; in practice, about the only form of discouragement we have is to undo or delete those unwelcome edits. Delete this, without prejudice to re-creation of a real Wikipedia article by an impartial non-involved editor. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - as non-notable. I'm not finding enough in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources.  I also find the article promotional, but that's not reason to delete.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 16:22, 25 May 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.