- 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. Nominator withdrew after citations demonstrating notability were presented, no remaining arguments for deletion. j⚛e deckertalk 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stanislav Grof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is all primary sourced, Biography section is unsourced. Presents his views uncritically and no indication of the reception of his views is given. The other half of the article is mostly just rather lengthy quotes from Grof. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Subject meets notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Article might need improvement, but that's not grounds for deletion.TheRingess (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't stated how he mets the criteria. Where is the significant coverage in reliable sources? What criteria does he meet? What we instead is an article consisting purely of primary sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have based your keep arguments in the other two AfDs on attacking the delete voting editors. Please desist from doing so and provide an actual policy or guideline based rationale for a keep. My mind can be changed and indeed I have changed my vote in the past based on convincing arguments, not personal attacks. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that my skepticism does not offend you. — goethean ॐ 14:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Skepticism cam be healthy, here are some examples of me changing my mind: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reg_Gorman, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Militant_atheism, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bernie_Siegel_(2nd_nomination). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: Masses of sources are available to improve the article. Click the scholar link and count the citations. Click on news. WP:POTENTIAL. K2709 (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Grof is a well-known, influential writer. Problems with the article are not a reason for deletion; they can be fixed through editing. (You might want to look up what Carl Sagan said about Grof in Broca's Brain if you want an example of "mainstream" coverage of the man). Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 00:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added some secondary sources there are plenty more. Article just needs some TLC . Lumos3 (talk) 13:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, perhaps speedily. And a suggestion that fanatical advocates of suppressing what they view as fringe theories learn the very first, most basic facts about the subjects which they would suppress. — goethean ॐ 15:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AfD can be closed. There is some coverage of Grof himself amongst the citations of his works. I suggest that if Goethan, had instead of assuming bad faith, simply shown me some secondary sources with significant coverage or provided some policy/guideline based argument I would have been convinced more quickly. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have demonstrated your approach and your priorities clearly on the fringe topics noticeboard. I will expend my time and energy where I see fit. — goethean ॐ 15:35, 29 June 2012 (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.