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. — Jake Wartenberg 01:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insight Meditation Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non notable organisation. Crafty (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Damn you, Cunard, and the New York Times and that other liberal rag, the Boston Globe. Delete--not notable; WP is not the Yellow Pages. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Naughty, naughty. Let's not bring politics into the deep meditating realms of the holy Buddha. I don't think The Buddha would be too pleased with partisan criticism on his holy page. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry Cunard, but this is a fact, as established by a reliable source, here. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm equally sorry, but if this were a reliable source, then Bullshido.net would be uber-notable. Cunard (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as virtually all of the references are to primary sources and nothing in the new version of the article establishes notability moreso than when it was last created. --otherlleft 02:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As much as I hate to disagree with you, Drmies, :) this is notable. See this article from the Telegram & Gazette, this article from the Boston Globe, this article from San Francisco Gate. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good legwork, but I'm not convinced. I can't access the Telegram & Gazette article without a paid membership, but assuming good faith that it's accurate, it's only a local paper so it doesn't carry much weight in its own right. The Boston Globe article is a good source, but the SF Gate article is about Spirit Rock and mentions Insight only incidentally as it relates to Spirit Rock - it doesn't even list separate contact information for the Insight Center. I think you have one good source, which suggests that others may be out there, but on its own it's not sufficient.--otherlleft 02:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are more sources on Google News Archive; see here. This source also appears to provide some coverage. Cunard (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See also the sources posted below. Cunard (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - notability not established by information included in article. I imagine the Dalai Lama and Richard Gere have been to a great many places during their lifetime, the vast majority of which don't merit a Wikipedia article.Keep - I've reviewed changes to the article and now believe it asserts notability (re: size, if nothing else) and has sufficient verifiable independent sources to back up that assertion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Insight Meditation Society is notable. See this article from The New York Times, the article from The Boston Globe mentioned above, as well as this Google Books entry, this one, and this one. Again, notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The sources you're provding are a mixed bag, and I wish you'd only point out really good ones, but I'm not entirely unconvinced. The Google News search looks like it's only minor coverage (local media sources) and the third book you provide as a source only lists Insight in its address listing, so I don't find those credible. I am of two minds on the NY Times source; I can't decide if this article about meditation establishes notability by interviewing people at the center or not (there's an accomplished reporter in my area who has written several articles for the Times, and I could foresee her writing one on meditation that used an otherwise non-notable establishment as its backdrop, but I am not sure if the mention would make such a place notable). I guess I would consider it a weak reference like the ones from local papers, since the article could have been written just about anywhere and still had the same information about meditation; my mind is open to be changed by the well-formed arguments of other editors, of course. Have you added any of these to the article? It would probably be easier for other editors to review them in context than have to wade through links like I did. Thanks again for your work on this!--otherlleft 03:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A whole bunch of sources is great - and commendations on the work you put in to find them! - but as of this posting they're not in the article and the article still does not within its text make any assertion as to why it might be notable other than two celebrities having visited it. Please improve the article to pass WP:N on its own merits; we're evaluating what actually exists, not what might potentially exist. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, that's not so, I'm afraid. If the topic is notable, and that is what we are here to weigh in on, the article gets to stay. AfD is not for cleanup, though it often is. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Dusty here. Fuck Cunard and fuck his poxy sources. We came to this AfD for a deleting, and we're gonna have a deleting, dangnabbit. Crafty (talk) 03:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay ... Cunard (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (to DustFormsWords) Sourced added. The NYT source provides significant coverage, as does this reference. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT item, in particular, is not substantial coverage of the IMS (the topic under discussion). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT source provides multiple paragraphs about Insight Meditation Society; see this Google cached link, particularly the coverage following the paragraph that states: "THE THREE-MONTH COURSE AT the Insight Meditation Society in Barre, Mass., is the marathon of meditation; no "little escape," it demands a total commitment." In conjunction with the Google Books results and The Boston Globe article, Insight Meditation Society is notable. Cunard (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, Cunard, I'm still in favour of a delete. The sources now included in the article are in the nature of restraurant reviews, but for meditation retreats rather than restaurants. We wouldn't list every restaurant in every town in all the world simply because they'd had two or three reviews and I don't think it's appropriate here either. (To put it in the language of WP:N, the sources aren't "significant".) Also, there's no claim made in the article or in the supporting sources for why Insight Meditation Society is more notable than any other meditation retreat anywhere else in the world, and as such I don't feel that it passes WP:N unless someone puts forward a rationale for meditation retreats being inherently notable. (Thank you very much for responding to me and contibuting to the debate though!) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Cunard's sources show the subject as meeting the GNG fairly easily. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - agree with Cunard, notability is established. --Milowent (talk) 04:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is one of the most influential buddhist meditation centers in the world. the founders are all highly notable meditation instructors, and this is their core center for teaching. If the problem is one of getting adequate sourcing, i have no doubt it can be found. however, the coverage may be within the buddhist or meditation/new age community. New York Times, WSJ, Time, Newsweek, etc may be a bit short. so within the buddhist community, this is highly notable. and i agree that the purpose of AFD is to determine notability for the subject, not the article as it stands.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why are Buddhists so lazy at referencing their wiki pages? To me, this is an obvious keep. The IMS is exceptionally influential in both modern Buddhism and psychotherapy. There's a clear reason to get the page to a better standard, but not to delete it. Bluehotel (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because first there is a reference, then there is no reference, then there is.  pablo_hablo. 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The IMS is arguably the foremost center for teaching and promoting vipassana and metta metitation in the U.S. and its founders Jack Kornfield, Sharon Salzberg, and Joseph Goldstein, aside from being highly respected teachers in the Buddhist community, are also among the most recognized authors on these types of meditation in the country. Notability is definitely established among Buddhists. 152.130.7.130 (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • response - Ah, but notability is not inherited! Not every brainchild of a notable individual is itself notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but its founders aside, Barre MA (home of IMS) is analogous to Mecca for American Buddhists who practice vipassana meditation. If they're serious about their study, they've either been there or want to go. The center/society is notable for being the foremost of its kind. Almost the only of its kind. 152.130.7.130 (talk) 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds like it should be pretty easy to find some sources to demonstrate that notability, then. --otherlleft 02:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Although I do not practice within the Theravada tradition, I am friends with perhaps around 200 Buddhists and have personally had conversations with most of them about the IMS during our retreats (when they compare our experiences with those they had while at the IMS, for example). So IMS is quite notable in that it is well-known in the Buddhist community and held in high regard. The problem with documenting notability for a center such as this is that many of the sources that contain references to the IMS are in relatively small circulation papers and magazines directed toward the Buddhist community such as Snow Lion (Buddhist newspaper of Snow Lion publications from Ithaca NY) or Tricycle Magazine.

• Perhaps there may be alternate ways of establishing notability for this center. I have beside me a stack of 16 books I've pulled from my library that reference the IMS. The Experience of Insight, by Joseph Goldstein, Shambhala Publications, 1976 discusses encounters during a 30 day retreat at the IMS and states "For further information about vipassana meditation you may contact The Insight Meditation Society (and gives the address in Barre, MA). A Path with Heart by Jack Kornfield, Bantam Books, 1993 contains references to the IMS and discusses their "Insight Meditation Teachers Code of Ethics." Breath by Breath, by Larry Rosenberg, Shambhala Publications, 1998 also references the IMS. I could make a long list but I think this illustrates the point.
• Another way of recognizing the IMS as notable would be to look at their list of prestigous faculty and instructors for the year 2009-2010 found here [1]. Many of these teachers are among the best in this field. I have gone down this list and established that more than half of their core instructors are notable enough to have have en-wiki entries of their own (try it), including many that I've personally never heard of like Rodney Smith and others. And then some of their visiting instructors such as Sayadaw U Pandita are spiritual leaders of world-renown. Incidentally, I think all of the wiki articles I looked at on those individuals reference the IMS, so deleting this article would turn a lot of blue wiki-links red.
• There is an chapter by Gil Fronsdal who studied Buddhist Studies at Stanford University that was published in The Faces of Buddhism in America in 1998 and is preserved here [2] which gives an overview of the introduction of some streams of Buddhism into the U.S. In this chapter he notes:

Arguably the most significant event for the introduction of vipassana to America occurred when Jack Kornfield and Joseph Goldstein taught summer meditation courses at the Naropa Institute in 1974, at the invitation of the Tibetan teacher Chogyam Trungpa and the Hindu teacher Ram Dass (Richard Alpert). Kornfield and Goldstein's classes proved immensely successful and launched a sixteen-year teaching partnership. For the next two years they traveled around America offering meditation retreats attended predominantly by Americans in their twenties and thirties.

In 1976, Kornfield and Goldstein, together with fellow teachers Sharon Salzberg and Jacqueline Schwartz, bought a former Catholic seminary and boys' school in Barre, Massachusetts. This became a permanent, year-round meditation retreat center called Insight Meditation Society (IMS). IMS quickly became the most active vipassana center in the West, with students coming from all over the United States and Europe to participate in ten-day to three-month retreats throughout the year.

• This last statement of his from what I can discern is still the reality today. Surely this is enough to establish notability. I don't have any personal interest in this wiki article myself, but I was shocked to see that it was marked for deletion (and that it had been deleted once previously) given that the IMS is so well-known and highly regarded.HeartSpoon (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.