Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychology of science

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology of science[edit]

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

Largely unsourced, unfocused, untouched Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the nominator has not given any valid grounds for deletion. I did a cursory look at the sources and found that Maslow (1966) has 1.7k cites in Google scholar, and Feist (2008) has 282, so it does appear to be a notable academic sub-discipline. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep - This is certainly not a notable field of psychology, and 1700 citations on Google Scholar is not very many for a book published by a prominent psychologist in 1966. By comparison, Maslow's other works have 20-40,000 citations, so this is clearly one of his lesser works. However, there are several reliable references listed here and if the "suggested reading" section can be incorporated inline, I think that we have the beginnings of a decent article here. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 09:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eight thousand GS hits for the article title, few of which appear to be false positives. As a subject, it seems to have lagged behind the sociology of science in growth, but it's worth having an article on. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - we have an article on Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, so I don't see why we can't keep this article. Also, this article has a long list called "Suggested Readings", although I don't see why this can't be called "Further Reading". Vorbee (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2018 (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.