Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EnlightenNext (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 delete. As the first AFD only failed due to nobody participating, it is uncontroversial to go with the clear consensus here. KaisaL (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EnlightenNext

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

I missed commenting at the first AfD and my searches are now finding nothing better at all aside from a few several links at News and browsers....nothing actually convincing. Notifying 1st AfDer I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Considering no one weighed in at the first AFD, I'll also post a link to this AFD at WP:FTN, just to get the word out as I'm not sure what projects to notify and the integral movement seems to come up at FTN quite a bit. Maybe redirect to Integral theory (Ken Wilber)? It seems like that's what has been happening with most of the non-notable integral movement pages recently. —PermStrump(talk) 23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Fringe stuff should be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views so it comes up on said project's article alerts - David Gerard (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - David Gerard: I had no idea that was a project. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 20:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it's already on my watchlist. :-P —PermStrump(talk) 20:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the one to watchlist: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Alternative_Views/Article_alerts - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per OP.142.105.159.60 (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the references are skimpy and unconvincing - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability, and the article has a glaring promotional angle. Should simply redirect to the founder. Delta13C (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2016 (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.