Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary guidance media

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 draft article has not been accepted at this time so closing in favour of delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary guidance media

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

This phrase appears to be a WP:neologism created by one researcher, who has started a company with this name. Three references included which are not by this author don't appear to use the term, but are about related concepts. Mentions on the internet appear to be almost all created by her or her company, or in her various profiles. There's a draft in progress about the author, Draft:Dana Klisanin, who appears to have gained some notice for her other activities; if the draft is accepted the current article could be redirected there instead of being deleted. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. sst ✈ 17:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/delete - if notable enough, redirect. Otherwise, delete. There's already too much fall-out from Wilber's writings. But noability is questionable: she's not in the news, and het articles are hardly cited. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect as this article is still questionably solid. SwisterTwister talk 05:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 12 February 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.