Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpersonal sociology

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transpersonal sociology

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Insufficient notability Hawol (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this article and I now see that I was a bit too optimistic about its notability. This is a tiny field of Transpersonal Studies that has shown little or no development since its beginning. The field has produced a very small amount of literature, and there is hardly any new literature. The article is based mainly on primary references, only a few of the references are secondary. I did a thorough literature search and was not able to establish any more references for this article than the few references given. I propose that the article be deleted--Hawol (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2018-10 ✍️ create

Keep: while the nominator/creator may well be right that the field has had little impact, that's an intrinsically difficult standard to judge, which is why whenever possible we prefer to determine notability on the basis of whether significant coverage in reliable sources exists. In this case it seems to me that such coverage does exist in the form of the 2013 special issue of the International Journal of Transpersonal Studies and the earlier Greenwood article (as well as probably the Boucouvalas article, though I'm not able to access that). As I mentioned at the article talk page, distinguishing between primary and secondary sources in articles about academic fields and disciplines is difficult and sometimes counterproductive – we're bound to cite theorists who played a pivotal role in the development of an idea, and that isn't at all the same thing as citing a band's website or a company's press releases. If there isn't a consensus to keep this it should be merged into Transpersonal#Transpersonal studies. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 10 April 2020 (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.