Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert K. C. Forman

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. I almost closed this as No consensus as the Keeps are indeed very weak but they still are Keeps after reviewing the article and sources. A future AFD might have a very different result but in this one there is a Weak Keep consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert K. C. Forman[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:PROF and part of a now crumbling WP:Walled garden of TM/Integral studies that was once a pretty bad corner of Wikipedia. I just don't think we have any WP:FRIND quality sources to write a biography of this obscure professor. jps (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Religion. jps (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minimally updated, most sources are self-published from the 90s. Nothing newsworthy or really notable. Lindsey40186 (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Scholar says one of his book has is cited by 577 citations and another by 314. That may be enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think that with this particular area citogenesis runs a bit wild. Most of the articles and books that cite him, I think, are not the kind of independent, reliable source we would want for an establishment of notability. But happy to defer to others who may be able to suss out something from that list of sources that are essentially championing TM-style approaches as the key to happiness. jps (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I found and added to the article nine reviews of his books, published in academic journals. That would normally be enough for a clear keep from me, per WP:AUTHOR, but in this case I have no idea how to judge whether a journal is a mainstream religious studies journal or a fringe journal (from my uninformed point of view they all look the same) and adding these doesn't solve the main problem with the article that essentially all of its text is primary-sourced and needs gutting or replacing. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This man is a big name in scholarly studies of mysticism, and is widely cited in areas such as religious studies, philosophy, anthropology and transpersonal psychology. YTKJ (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC) Please note that Wikipedia has an article on Walter Terence Stace, another man who did important research into mysticism. YTKJ (talk) 13:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 00:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This is the weakest keep I think I've ever given at an AfD. The journal he was the editor of is a real journal but it's by no means a large or important one like Psych Science is for the APS. I read a few papers and the work that's published there makes almost no sense to me. The IF of the journal floats between 0.8-1.1 so again this is a pretty small journal. He's written books which were reviewed and are from academic presses, his older works hold up better than the newer material. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 00:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep per Dr vulpes. I think there's barely enough to justify an article. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 07:29, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr vulpes. The person who loves reading (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2023 (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.