Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual ecology


 * 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. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Spiritual ecology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Setting aside the current discussion about copyright violation, this article contains only internal references to books and periodicals published by those supporting Spiritual ecology. I can see nothing here which conveys any notability outside this niche interest group. There is no evidence that this has received any mentions that would convey notability in reliable external sources. Despite the wealth of references, and a trawl of Google, this appears to fail WP:GNG  Velella  ,Velella Talk 09:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The copyright issue has been addressed and removed. In looking at the history of this page on Wikipedia about Spiritual Ecology, it was started in 2004, and has evolved significantly since then with contributions from many different editors and resources. Three years ago the page was further developed, with various editors contributing more recent references and resources on the subject, include in-depth history and the more recently published books, academic studies, and other work. The page has of course changed and continued to evolve — in viewing the history you can see several editors both from within the field and outside of the field, who have contributed corrections, edits, and new resources. As this is an emerging area of study, the Wikipedia page serves as a encyclopedic resource which clearly continues to evolve as new sources come available, and has continued to provide a valuable resource for research and reference materials on the subject. There are now 3 votes to keep the page (both here and on the 'talk" section), and as a contributing editor to the page, I also agree it does not Fail WP:GNG --Gsc se (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC) — Gsc se (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep. I have also found several reliable external sources on the subject as well, including academic courses: program at Yale University with instructor Lorraine M. Fish, article also published by Yale by Leslie Sponsel, a class at the University of Hawaii, and this course at CIIS on Ecology, Spirituality, and Religion, course work from Kenyon College, from Journal of China West Normal University (Philosophy & Social Sciences), and Anthropological Contributions to Spiritual Ecology. Found additional news sources such as Ecologist Magazine, the Guardian (UK), and from Mother Earth News, and the dailykos.com, and Elephant Journal, Reflections on the Parliament of the World’s Religions, from The Salish Sea Spiritual Ecology Alliance, and Spiritual Ecology from the Anthropology and Environment Society of the American Anthropological Association and from the Parliament of World Religions ) The article topic is valid and encyclopedic, I also think it does not Fail WP:GNG--Stormlion67 (talk) 03:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC) — Stormlion67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note to closing admin: This editor's only Wikipedia contribution has been this !vote. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:58, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found discussion about this topic in a number of reliable sources (see, e.g., this article in the Huffington Post, this article from The Economic Times, this story from NPR, and this book published by Routledge). If the article does, indeed, violate copyright, then we may need to break out the WP:TNT, but I don't think this fails WP:GNG. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - both the Huffington Post ref and the Economic Times post are authored by people within the Spiritual ecology movement and therefore not independent. The Lisa Palmer book appears to be using the term Spiritual ecology in a very different way and is likely to be independent of the current group of contributing editors but doesn't seem to do anything for the notability of this article with the current content.  Velella  Velella Talk 17:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , even though some of the sources I cited above were written by people within the movement, I still think they confer notability to the topic. Articles that appear in the Huffington Post and the Economic Times are vetted by independent editors, so I think these still qualify as reliable sources pursuant to WP:RS and WP:NEWSORG. I think this article could definitely use some heavy editing to clean up potential WP:POV problems, and as I mentioned in my vote, we may even need to invoke WP:TNT. However, I think we should pursue improvement before deletion in this case (see WP:ATD). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * and, I did not create this page, it has been in existence since 2004. We contributed edits only in 2012 -- and before this deletion issue arose last week, I and the other editor I work with had not touched the page since, except for a typo; but I can see there have been several others contributing edits since then. As the deletion issue was presented last week, we are working to address the issue of notability -- adding the most recent events in the field, such as Faith leaders participation at the UN Climate Summit in Paris November 2015, new books, and references to Pope Francis's May 2015 Encyclical, etc. (do I need to add those references here as well, they're on the page?). I think the other sources cited in the discussion show the notability of the topic. For the second issue further edits can be made where needed to clean up the page, and I hope others with an interest in the subject would participate. I've read WP:NPOV, and the information presented here seems fair in representing the subject as found in many other reliable sources on the topic, and verifiable with references provided.  I also had understand all the different editors/contributors participating helped form and maintain a neutral perspective on the topic. Is there a particular section or area of the page you find doesn't provide a neutral perspective, or the whole piece? According to  WP:NPOV "While the burden of establishing verifiability and reliability rests on those who are challenged about it, there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time." Thanks for any help to improve the page.  Gsc se (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , I apologize for not responding sooner to your question. WP:NPOV requires articles to "[i]ndicate the relative prominence of opposing views". I don't see any presentation of voices or viewpoints that are critical of spiritual ecology in the article. I invite you to read WP:DUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE, which explain the importance of presenting all viewpoints "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, appreciate your response and your sending the information to read further. Just included section on "Opposing Views" -- have been researching, but at present there is not much criticism of the subject to be found in 3rd party sources, and only one or two "original research" critical academic papers/reviews of spiritual ecology publications -- which I understand are considered primary sources, and not to be included here. Will be researching further, and extrapolate in this section as research findings and time allow.Gsc se (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 07:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Comment - Two of the keep votes for this deletion nomination appear to have been made by accounts that appear to be meatpuppets.  CatcherStorm  talk   09:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The first is the article's creator. The second is a blatantly obvious sock/meatpuppet. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete To the extent this represents a specific movement, it's promotional. To the extent this represents a general concept, it's vague, and there are multiple possible meanings. 09:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Keep because WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, but I do think the article needs to be cut in half. There has been an attempt to conflate certain fringey views with the concepts actually discussed in the many sources that a google news search easily turns up, and this needs to be corrected. But I don't agree with DGG's implication that the subject matter of those sources is so variegate that the phrase doesn't correspond to a topic. Notecardforfree's sources are enough for GNG. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and copy edit per sources. In addition to sources listed above in this discussion, entire books exist about the topic; passes WP:GNG:, , , , , , . North America1000 13:28, 2 January 2016 (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.