Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiral Dynamics


 * 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. The article's subject is found to be promotional and to not be notable. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Spiral Dynamics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Highly promotional article, essentially the table of contents of a single book  DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge to a new topic for Spiral Dynamics (book), with this current content cut down to subsections on book content. Doesn't seem too promotional to me - someone put a lot of work into this page and it's bloated, sure, but they were careful to word things in an encyclopedic style and included a criticism section. Earflaps (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 22:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 22:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 22:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Article is out of proportion to the notability of the book. Too many of the references are to the web site promoting the book and its topic. This is the second possibly promotional article I've reviewed whose many author is User:Dawlco, and I would appreciate any clarity that could be provided regarding User:Dawlco's relationship to these articles. One of those articles is Elza_Maalouf, and I note that books by Maalouf and a "Dawlabani, Said" are referenced in this article. LaMona (talk) 22:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Too many of the references are to the web site promoting the book and its topic." - to be devil's advocate, it could just be that the editor is still familiarizing themselves with how to reference well. Since the info based on those links could be easily culled, I wouldn't see that alone as a reason for deletion. Also, being an spa with a poor grasp of GNG doesn't necessitate that Dawlco has a COI. It's perfectly likely that he/she became familiar with the topics in some college course, and these less-than-perfect pages are their 'gateway' contributions to Wikipedia. Earflaps (talk) 07:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Question why is this article up for deletion in this project? under its talk page Talk:Spiral Dynamics it is part of WikiProject Psychology and WikiProject Alternative Views; it is not part of the literature project.  The article is about the theories of Don Beck who wrote a book about it.  let the other projects worry about it:) ps. it has previously been up for deletion, Articles for deletion/Spiral dynamics the discussion makes a good read:)  Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not clear what are third-party references, if any of them are - has anyone dredged out these? A trivial Google shows very little third-party - David Gerard (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, delete as it stands - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I found diddlysquat on the actual Wikipedia page as is, but going pretty deep into google did find some impressive mentions in academic contexts (Architectural Review). Though I have no idea why Huffpost has a tag for "spiral dynamics." basically I got the feeling that the Wikipedia current page doesn't even address what the popular use of this phrase is, because the more I searched, the more confused I got. For example, this excerpt from the above link: "The next meme is Purple, that of the tribe and KinSpirits, and Gebser’s Magic structure, in which thinking is animistic and magical, attributing powers to sacred and symbolic objects and starting to observe the cycles of seasons, customs and rites of passage." Wut? A pseudoscience experts might be useful here - Google is saturated with the phrase, but the search engine seems to prioritize mumbo jumbo websites made by Indigo children in lab suits. Earflaps (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep, and clean up article ruthlessly. Plenty of mentions in books and Google Scholar.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Keep. This page seems to be a decent summary of this philosophical examination and analysis of the development of a person's personality. It is lengthy, but, well written, and, gives me enough information that it arouses a certain interest in digging deeper into this model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmundt (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Dude. Even without proof, anyone with half a brain is going to assume you and the next comment are the same person. If you want to get your point across, just log into one account like a normal person and leave comments (you don't need to vote to contribute). The amount of 'keeps' vs. 'deletes' is less important than the discussion anyways. Earflaps (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep This is a topic of notable interest in my field;  I don't quite understand why anyone wants it deleted. I agree with the previous poster that it's a reasonable summary and leads those interested into learning more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyre42 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Nom, please note the contribs on these two keep votes. LaMona (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 19:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * delete A promo of a weird pseudoscience; with no discussion inmainstream to establish notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:20, 7 March 2015 (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.