Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transcendental perspectivism

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transcendental perspectivism[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)

Looks to be complete WP:VANITY. I see essentially no attestation to third-party independent notice. jps (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Religion, and Psychology. jps (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No secondary sources in the article and practically nothing turns up on Google Scholar (a few papers use the same phrase but in a completely unrelated sense). No indication that this is an idea which has made any significant impact on scholarship, and there are no independent sources with which we could write an encyclopedia article about this topic. WJ94 (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notabillity. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 03:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(until further notice). It does seem there is a COI-issue, as noted at the talk page of the article. But that is not reason to delete it. Also, lack of citations in the article, doesnt translate to lack of citations in general. There is some literature on "Transcendental perspectivism" [1]. I am open to discussion though. Cinadon36 18:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the GScholar results myself and most of what comes up is either passing mentions, authored by Krieglstein himself, or about a completely different topic. Could you link to the specific sources which you think provide significant coverage? WJ94 (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be part of a WALL of the creator's parents (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werner Krieglstein and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryann Krieglstein). I would add to the above TP is mentioned only in passing in a handful of books (GBooks). Krieglstein mentiones TP in his own papers, but these are barely cited. It seems this idea was never taken up by others, nor did it make any impact. 128.252.154.2 (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Artem.G (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As written, it verges on vanispamcruftisement, and there's nothing we can do to improve it in a policy-compliant way. I agree with WJ94's evaluation of the literature. XOR'easter (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:SIGCOV + sources are from the philosopher's books (WP:PRIMARY) Tirishan (talk) 21:58, 4 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.