Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness and Experiential 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   merge to British Psychological Society. (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Consciousness and Experiential Psychology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Delete or merge with British Psychological Society as "Consiousness and Experimental Psychology" consists mainly of content identifying it as a branch of the BPS, and would be better suited listed in the main article. Levinge (talk) 21:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - See no apparent reason for deletion.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * merge as a section of an organization without separate notability . It holds one conference a year, and worldCat shows no library but the British Library has a copy of its proceedings; it also   publishes what it claims is a journal Consciousness and Experiential Psychology--but it has only 2 issues a year  & is not even in Ulrich's, and Worldcat shows holdings only in the 3 English copyright libraries.   Our general practice is to require much more than this for a section of a notable organisation.   The section's own web page talks more about why the subject of consciousness is important, than why the section is.   DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge seems more appropriate than deletion. Tim! (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per DGG.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 03:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge per DGG. gscholar hits but as nominator says part of British Psychological Society. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.