Three issues have been raised concerning this article.

1- This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it.

2- This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay : Which I disagree because this article describes an institute and its philosophy.

3-The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. (February 2025)

I would love some help to sort these issues out. Thanks. Kmcoulib (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The tone is promotional, not encyclopedic. This does need fixing. The article needs to be a disinterested statement of either dry facts or attributable points of view ('according to ..., ...') as reported by reliable third-party sources. See Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica for an example of a WP article about a similar subject.

More importantly, wp:notability is not established. Specifically, "a topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:GNG).

"Independent" means not written by the institute itself or by people closely affiliated to it such as Mark Stavish. Such sources can be used with certain restrictions in the article (see WP:ABOUTSELF), but they do not count towards establishing notability.

For an example of sources used to write about subjects like this on Wikipedia, see Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica#References. Ideally, we would have something like this independent source for this WP article.

You need to demonstrate that the article satisfies either the general notability guideline or the subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. If not, it will at some point be nominated for deletion. If you need more time, it may be helpful to move the article to wp:draft space for a while, where it will be left alone for up to six months. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just source it to the Institute's website. Unless there are reliable sources independent of the Institute which cover it in-depth, the org simply isn't notable and the article should be deleted, IMO. Skyerise (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]