Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ayurvedic 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. Walrus Ji's analysis of the sources as containing only brief mentions has not been contested.  Sandstein  10:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

The Ayurvedic Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A private therapy school in New Mexico. It claims 80 students, but lacks significant coverage in Independent reliable sources to prove that it is remarkable enough to have an article. It should not be confused with similarly named notable school National Institute of Ayurveda Walrus Ji (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I found some additional sources and added 2. There are more so someone just needs to improve this.According to Women's Health article, it is the leading such school in the West.Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Womenshealthmag has only a one line mention of this organisation in the entire article, which is considered a passing mention and not significant coverage as mandated by WP:ORGCRIT. The second article on Monetarycounty weekly appears to be a paid and promotional article. I believe we would need better sources to establish the WP:NORG here. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep 6 sources, isn't that enough to establish notability, ESPECIALLY when the entire page is 2 paragraphs long? Arsonxists (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I am afraid none of the sources listed pass the criteria set for organisations. see my comment above. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The sourcing does not rise to the standard set by WP:ORGCRIT. In addition, due to the nature of the organization, WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS are relevant — to be blunt about it, we have to have a very good reason to write about garbage fake medicine. Basically, we'd need much better documentation than is actually available in order to justify this article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per XOR'easter. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 22:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - The only two non-directory independent sources appear to be Monterey County Weekly and Women's Health magazine. The first is better, albeit still a type of press release; the second is a mention.  This is not significant coverage in independent sources.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The sourcing does not meet the quality called for by NCORP - that the article is short does not help. This is a non-notable organisation. Girth Summit  (blether)  08:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete: No evidence that this organization meets Wikipedia's notability standards. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NORG as no-brainer. There is significant independent coverage in many academic sources. Some of them I found in just 10 minutes are:
 * Yoonadue (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * easy come, easy go.
 * [1] has only a 1 line mentioning that X is founded by Y.
 * [2] has three 1-line mentions.
 * [3] has a 1-line promo type coverage.
 * [4] 1 mention and interview.
 * [5] 1 line mention.
 * None of these can be considered significant coverage. Moreover theses sources are not mainstream, they are all books on fringe pseudoscience topic. I am afraid the ORGCRIT remains unfulfilled--Walrus Ji (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What Walrus Ji said - without even considering the quality of these sources, these are passing mentions, there is no coverage that would meet the standards of WP:CORPDEPTH. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * [4] 1 mention and interview.
 * [5] 1 line mention.
 * None of these can be considered significant coverage. Moreover theses sources are not mainstream, they are all books on fringe pseudoscience topic. I am afraid the ORGCRIT remains unfulfilled--Walrus Ji (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What Walrus Ji said - without even considering the quality of these sources, these are passing mentions, there is no coverage that would meet the standards of WP:CORPDEPTH. Girth Summit  (blether)  19:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:ORGCRIT, as the significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is totally clear. desmay (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. No one has overcome the points raised by PaleoNeonate and Walrus Ji. Crossroads -talk- 04:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources offered have only passing mentions. If we had an appropriate article on Ayurveda in the United States, then a merge/redirect might be OK. But we don't have such an article. Neutralitytalk 00:09, 25 December 2020 (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.