Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sociology of space

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sociology of space[edit]

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

Article fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. (Created by the author of Martina Löw and de:Raumsoziologie.) Compare: Social geography. --Kraut&rüben (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep The article is very confusing, but there seems to be something there. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree that there may be something here, but it needs a lot of work (such as inline sourcing). This one actualy could do with taking to ARS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, provisional. Google Scholar and Google Books immediately show tons of direct coverage by reliable secondary sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], etc. The given argument for deletion is clearly invalid and there are no remaining arguments left to be considered. — Rankiri (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article provides an overview of its field. It can be improved (and perhaps become a better placement for some of the material currently in the Lefebvre biog page), but has a decent stack of references mentioned in the text and listed at the end. AllyD (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some clean-up, pruning and broadening of historical content has now been done. Refs moved inline and also added from those identified by Rankiri. AllyD (talk)

Weak delete or userfy. Might be notable, but the prose is irredeemably confusing. Pcap ping 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a blatently notable topic. Userfy or incubate if needed. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2010 (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.