Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecopsychology

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The result was speedy keep per criterion 1 (withdrawn by nominator with no one arguing for deletion). Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ecopsychology[edit]

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

The article is somewhat redundant but should be deleted because it introduces the uncommon neologism Ecopsychology rather than the more conventional (but still niche) conservation psychology. I propose that this article should be replaced with a redirect to that page. Salimfadhley (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment -related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - may be uncommon, but there are plenty of sources cited to demonstrate notability. It returns 200k ghits including more than 4k just in Scholar. It's not the same thing as conservation psychology, but clearly related. I don't have expertise in the area, but these two sources discuss both terms: an APA publication & Human Ecology Review article. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 14:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With over 4,300 hits on GScholar, this looks like a highly notable topic. The field has its own journal, Ecopsychology and that page, too, distinguishes ecopsychology from conservation psychology. Along with Rhododendrites' sources, there is good evidence in RS that the two fields are considered distinct, and that is good enough for us. The article itself is well-structured has some citations. There might be some synthesis, but nothing that cannot be fixed, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE. A highly notable topic, good evidence in RS that this is a distinct topic and an article with surmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw proposal WP:SNOW. ;-) - yes, it's probably better to clean than delete.

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.