Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Psychology

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. Default keep, a merge or redirect are possible. Tone 17:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Psychology

[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)

Was recently prodded after having been an uncited stub for years. De-prodded, with a couple of sources added which show the existence of the book. However, a WP:BEFORE couldn't turn up any references which show that the book meets either WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Quantum mysticism. Any material on "quantum Psychology" would make better sense there per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC); amended 16:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't normally venture into these discussions so forgive me if I say something stupid. A google scholar search for '"Quantum Psychology" wilson' gives 191 results. The amount of academic work which references makes it notable enough in my eyes. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. But how is than pertinent to a redirect to Quantum mysticism, which already contains some content on the supposed application of quantum mechanics to psychological phenomena, together with useful framing context? Alexbrn (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored Alexbrn's comment which was inexplicably hidden by Pelirojopajaro. --JBL (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge. Even if notable, notable in this context. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a major book by a major counterculture author, mentioned in Wilson's The Guardian obituary and, as cited by Pelirojopajaro above, whose comment amounts to a Keep, is well represented in Google scholar. Wilson is recognized as one of the main authors of the American and world counterculture, comparable to Timothy Leary, and all of his works are thus stand-alone notable. Quantum Psychology is also notable for being the introductory volume about the subject, and is notable as one of the few book written totally in E-Prime. Too much going for this one to delete. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Robert Anton Wilson. Passing mentions in both obituaries and no reviews show that NBOOK is not satisfied, but redirects are cheap. I'm not finding any use of the term with respect to quantum mysticism. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Robert Anton Wilson#The Cosmic Trigger series and other books as WP:ATD-R. The sourcing does not support a standalone article. Listings and mentions of a book do not provide content with which we can write an actual encyclopedia article. Either that source material needs to be produced or the article should be redirected. Also there is no such thing as an author whose every work is standalone notable. Each work is judged on its own merits and if the author is so famous with works so noteworthy, there should be no issues with providing sources that discuss each work in depth. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable book Lightburst (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2019 (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.