Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Calm Centre


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The Calm Centre

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Notability is not shown for this organisation/meditation centre. Its founder Paul Wilson is notable, but notability is not inherited, and none of the sources for the article shows that the centre is notable (as opposed to the founder). As a matter of fact, most of the claims about the centre in the article are unreferenced; most of the existing references are used to define concepts used in the article and don't mention the centre at all, and it does not look as if the centre itself has been the subject of third-party publications to a notable degree. bonadea contributions talk 10:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  —bonadea contributions talk 10:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep this centre is notable as well as its founder, and there are many sources for this in many media sites such as THE WEEKEND AUSTRALIAN MAGAZINE and the independent newspaper --Mohamed Ouda (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: The notability of Mr Wilson is not in question. Both the sources you mention here are articles about Paul Wilson. The first of these articles includes the sentence He founded his own research centre, The Calm Centre, employing a team of psychologists and an electroencephalograph (an EEG machine, which records electrical impulses in the brain) to try to measure the impact of meditation.; the second interview includes the sentence He runs a non-profit- making Calm Centre in Sydney, peopled by researchers and psychologists. That is the sum of what is said about the Calm Centre. And that goes for all the other sources in the article as well: where the centre is mentioned at all, the mentions are trivial. I have not been able to find any other reliable sources that write about the centre in more depth. This doesn't come close to meeting the "significant reliable coverage" criterion for the centre. --bonadea contributions talk 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Speedy Delete A7 - This article about an organisation does not assert the notability of its topic. Failing speedy delete, the article still should be deleted as not passing WP:N - none of the listed sources directly address The Calm Centre in significant detail, and the majority of the article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for Paul Wilson. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

contributions talk 07:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For the record, it's likely that the article was created in response to this advert on an external site. This should not be a factor when notability is discussed (if the centre is notable it can have an article), but it is still relevant. --bonadea


 * Comment haha, good catch Bonadea! Adpete (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was about to write exactly what Bondea wrote: the first ref contains one sentence about the Calm Centre, the rest of the references are about Paul Wilson with a link the Calm Centre. So there's nothing notable to say about it. A redirect to Paul Wilson (meditation teacher) would be OK though. Adpete (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising medium and there is no notability shown for this Centre. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:58, 30 November 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.