Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychosophy

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 Transwiki. I'm not actually up on the transwiki process, so I'll depend on somebody else to come along and perform the actual transwikification. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosophy[edit]

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

Definite WP:NOTDIC violation, potential WP:GNG violation, the article describes the word word, rather than the concept it describes. I would personally suggest moving some of the content in the article into Wiktionary. AtlasDuane (talk) 13:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it has academic relevance and research. should be kept. Encyclopedic in nature.Light2021 (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

to Wiktionary This is an overview of the different people who have taken the word and run with it; it is not an encyclopedic article on the subject, primarily because there does not seem to be a central subject definition to build anything on. Better suited to Wiktionary, presumably with some shortening. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:41, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or transwiki?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 07:37, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki It's a dictionary definition, with almost nothing of an encyclopedic nature: there's a list of where it was used and some quotes. The stuff on Scott Hamilton could be moved into a separate article if Hamilton or his ideas were notable, but I'm not convinced they are, and therefore should be deleted. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2017 (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.