Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council on Spiritual Practices (2nd nomination)

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 merge‎ to Psychedelic therapy. Rough consensus against a standalone article, but in favor of retaining the material Star Mississippi 03:22, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Council on Spiritual Practices

AfDs for this article:

[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)

Doesn't reach WP:NCORP, with the objections in the last deletion discussion also seeming to hold; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council on Spiritual Practices. Klbrain (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Religion, and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (article creator). While acknowledging that it's borderline, there are more sources than there were at the time of the last AfD, and I think it meets WP:NCORP. CSP played an interesting role in the psychedelic revival of the 2000s. Maybe this is content that should be merged into Psychedelic therapy or some other article rather than being covered in a standalone article on the organization, but it is encyclopedic content that improves Wikipedia.Prezbo (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a tough one, there are many mentions in Gbooks and Gscholar about conferences they've either sponsored or how they've helped various researchers [1] gather information. I can't find anything strictly about the group. They've been around for a while, but nothing I can find for notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Psychedelic therapy. There's just not enough for a stand-alone stub. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Psychedelic therapy ,per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments for Deletion, Keeping and Merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Psychedelic therapy per Prezbo's suggestion. Peter1c (talk) 01:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC) (article contributor)[reply]
Keep. As user:Oaktree b says, they're plainly cited a lot, although haven't attracted a lot of direct attention. I've added two sources, Salon which makes a fair bit of its article about the council, and a book by John Horgan (journalist). I would argue that while direct coverage barely scrapes past notability, it still passes and that its frequent use as a source in other texts makes it appropriate for Wiki to have a page.OsFish (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per OsFish. There is almost certainly more it's just difficult to find in the sea of citations - but many of those citations give information about the org. But the ones above seem OK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2025 (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.