Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotional geography

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. Per Tinton, Carwil's comments, currently keeping the article. Wifione ^Message 06:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional geography[edit]

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

There is not a sufficient agreement on this (or any other) particular definition of the term "emotional geography" to have a specific article on the term. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That in itself is not a reason to delete. If there are competing definitions, we can discuss their differences and the difficulty in defining the term. If some of the meanings are something completely different, it maybe should be a separate article. As football perfectly demonstrates, difficulty defining something is not a reason to delete. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in the case of football, this may be true. But a term such as emotional geography is likely to have as many different meanings as writers who write about the topic. The term is too vague. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICDEF. I can't see mcuh more being added. Am I wrong? Bearian (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick look at the sources suggests it is a notable concept. The current entry may be substubbish, but that article can and will be expanded into something better. Give it time. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What sources are we talking about here? The page lists a single reference, whose definition of "emotional geography" differs from other definitions found if one searches for other sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you noticed the "Find sources" link above? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This page needs expansion, not deletion. If the nominator would click the links above, either news, books, scholar, etc, then we might not have this discussion. Several hits come up, and I suggest the nominator withdraw this. Tinton5 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, →Σ τ c. 02:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — The subject of this review of recent literature (sorry for the paywall) in the academic field of geography. There's a coherent topic here that should be explored.--Carwil (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2012 (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.