Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transpersonal sociology (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Transpersonal disciplines#Transpersonal disciplines. Further discussion of whether the redirect is appropriate can take place at WP:RFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 7 July 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)

"There is no there there," as they say. Truly, it seems that this is just an article of synthesis glomming on to anyone who has mention the transpersonal framework with respect to sociology. As far as I can tell, however, it does not represent a coherent movement. The closest they got was a newsletter that ran for two years. We can cover that in the transpersonal discipline article more than adequately. Standalone this article does not deserve. jps (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per nom. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transpersonal_disciplines#Transpersonal_disciplines where it is mentioned. Per the nom's argument, multiple authors have discussed sociological aspects of the transpersonal framework and covering it briefly in the transpersonal disciples article is a reasonable approach. The topic is a reasonable search term and so a redirect is warranted. Any RS could be merged there as well. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by Mark viking. XOR'easter (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not very confident in the suggested redirect target, looks to be all from a couple of fringe journals. fiveby(zero) 22:24, 1 July 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.