Deletion of Transpersonal sociology

Comment: while the nominator/creator may well be right that the field has had little impact, that's an intrinsically difficult standard to judge, which is why whenever possible we prefer to determine notability on the basis of whether |significant coverage in reliable sources exists. In this case it seems to me that such coverage does exist in the form of the 2013 special issue of the ''International Journal of Transpersonal Studies'' and the earlier Greenwood article (as well as probably the Boucouvalas article, though I'm not able to access that). As I mentioned at the article talk page, distinguishing between primary and secondary sources in articles about academic fields and disciplines is difficult and sometimes counterproductive – we're bound to cite theorists who played a pivotal role in the development of an idea, and that isn't at all the same thing as citing a band's website or a company's press releases. If there isn't a consensus to keep this it should be merged into Transpersonal#Transpersonal studies. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for |lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for |soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion process (WP:NOQUORUM||WP:SOFTDELETE)