Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New England Institute of Religious Research


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

New England Institute of Religious Research

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

IDk why somone did this? i agree with it 100% but not complete the process? any way i saw it watchlist so i complete it Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC) I consider this subject not notable, The Boston Globe Published the article [] questioning Notability of the institute. Dr. Andrew Walsh [] editor of the Journal Religion in the News questions the main face of the institute Robert pardon's expert credentials seem to be merely claims he has told to the media and the media has repeated. [] Almost all mentions in the articles cited are introduce him and then lets him give opinion on "x group" not in compliance with "Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story". The only two articles to have any substantial mention him regard his opening intention to open meadow haven treatment center and then one of its opening, not meeting "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." he seem notable for the attleborro case then a smattering of articles outside of it not in compliance with "People notable only for one event" all book references in article are merely Works carrying merely trivial coverage... telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories" Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete
 * Keep. Significant secondary source coverage as made clear already by the article. Cirt (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —Cirt (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is heavily sourced, some of which comes from established articles in published printed documents such as books and newspapapers. It also must have been commented upon (with notable, published proof) by people from notable shows such as The Early Show. Thhe wikipedia article does make mention of the leader of this corporation, Robert Pardon, making exaggerated claims, but that shouldn't be much of an issue here, because even if some claims are exaggerated, this article has been proven in my eyes to be kept as an article. Backtable Speak to Me  about what I have done  06:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nom is forgetting that the fundamental underpinning of articles is not whether they're notable, but whether they're verifiable. This overwhelmingly passes the GNG due to detailed coverage by reliable sources, whether or not this Institute has any widespread importance.    RGTraynor  07:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep : as per RGTraynor's argument. Notability established by significant coverage. -- Europe22 (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * comment RGTraynors argument isn't really correct. There are lots of things that have substantial coverage in reliable sources that are not notable anyway and that should not have its own article - for example as the nominator states persons known for only one event etc. Furthermore most the article's sources do not treat the Institute but for the most part they treat some of the institute's - they basically establish that the institute exists but write little about it. Thirdly the article does not establish in the text what is notable about the institute if anything. There are a million similar institutions out there - what singles this one out? (I suspect that the answer is the fact that two of its staff members are notable).·Maunus· ƛ · 08:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: Sorry, but you're wrong. WP:V and WP:N both establish that if a subject is discussed in detail in multiple reliable sources - and you don't need all the 34 sources in the article to be about the Institute in detail, you need two to be - whether or not you think that subject's important is irrelevant.  Heaven knows I've been tabbed as a deletionist often enough (for one thing, you won't often find DGG and me on the same side of a AfD discussion), but this article plainly meets the relevant policies.    RGTraynor  09:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * reply I don't believe you are correct in your assessment. According to the general notability guidelines sources must treat the topic "directly and in detail" - i do not think the sources do either. Also the level of coverage only establish a presumption of notability - whether it in facts meets the criteria is up to us to judge. In my opinion the sources simply establishes that the institute verifiably exists )- not that it is in itself notable.(I can verify by reliable sources that my house exists - that doesnt mean it is notable. As for what people have called you in the past or how you have voted in other afd's that is not an argument.·Maunus· ƛ · 11:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it you've read none of the sources, then. This one from the Boston Globe, cited in the article, is a thousand word article (to which I have access by virtue of my local library database) about the Institute.  This from the Globe , likewise cited in the article, is a 1025-word piece about the Institute.  This from the Boston Herald , likewise cited in the article, is a 210-word piece about the Institute's treatment center.  To quote from Harlan Ellison, every man is entitled to an informed opinion.    RGTraynor  12:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * keepThe references seem sufficient to show the notability   DGG ( talk ) 09:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to add that there are major POV problems with the article, and attention will be needed to it.   DGG ( talk ) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient notability Annette46 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough coverage in reliable news sources to establish notability.Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Hmm, there seems to be enough coverage (at least at this point) to satisfy the notability guidelines.  Cocytus   [»talk«]  04:48, 3 January 2010 (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.