Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocentric universe
I admit that I was somewhat hasty in composing my earlier "keep" vote and didn't look closely enough at some of the sources I found via a quick Google search.  However, after taking the time to give this a more careful consideration, my "keep" vote still stands.  This article is about a *concept* that impacts broadly on science, metaphysics and even theology/spirituality.  It is not an event, so the limitation that  imposes on duration of coverage cannot apply here.  As others have pointed out, the notability of a metaphysical concept is not temporary.  Moreover, a concept does not need to have extensive coverage in peer-reviewed journals to be notable according to WP's standards.   warns against accepting sources that are not reliable and may only have trivial mentions.  This AfD and the article's reference already contain multiple sources published by reliable media outlets that are independent and cover the topic at significant length.  Although not peer-reviewed, WP in general still accepts sources of this nature as reliable so long as the media outlet utilizes a system of editorial review and holds to professional journalism standards.  Finally, I located a few additional sources too that appear to be of good quality: A review of Lanza's version of biocentrism was penned by Dr. Vinod Kuma, an associate editor of the journal ''Phase Transitions,'' and posted on http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/ Nirmukta.  Other reviews were published in the http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/biocentrism.pdf ''Journal of Scientific Exploration'' (PDF file) and the http://www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/download/67/57 ''Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research''.  The Journal of Scientific Exploration|WP article about the ''Journal of Scientific Exploration'' states that it is peer-reviewed and the other aformentioned journal offers at least some degree of peer review http://www.jcer.com/.  Considering all these sources collectively, it is still my opinion that  is met
— User:Mike, 01:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOTNEWS||WP:LOTSOFSOURCES||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)