Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacro-Egoism

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 17:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sacro-Egoism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Violates WP:NOTDICT and perhaps WP:ESSAY; seems highly likely that the page was created by the coiner of the term, User:Jsknoxesq vs Dr. John S. Knox; all edits from that user are to this article, and a userspace article for another term invented by Dr. John S. Knox. While there is some coverage in academic papers, all of them I have been able to find are by Dr. John S. Knox himself. Seems distinctly like he created a term for his PhD, and soon after made an article to promote his theory; in the last ~15 years seemingly few other academics has engaged with his material; except for being mentioned in the 2010 edition of Implicit Religion: the Journal of the Centre for the Study of Implicit Religion and Contemporary Spirituality. The mention amounts to simply "“sacro-egoism” (i.e., the ideology of self-fulfilment) (Knox, 2008)", among a list of other various philosophical propositions. It is mentioned briefly in relation to Quaker philosophy in "Quakers and spiritual direction" and even more passingly in some other Quaker-related works, but I don't think that justifies an article of its own, especially given that it was created by the coiner. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Religion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is tricky. I agree there look to be WP:COI issues on this topic. But if we ignore those for the moment, we have a term that has been discussed and published in a doctoral thesis and a resulting book. I suggest ordinarily we might take that as being a reason for inclusion. On the other hand, few others use it and there appear to be few who cite the book (and therefore presumably few who are building on the idea in their scholarly work). So on balance, I think we are left with a term that has been described and discussed by a single academic in the literature and which hasn't really met a bar of sufficient usage to be noted outwith of WP, therefore it probably shouldn't be here yet either. So WP:TOOSOON. Mix back in the unenclopedic writing style and the possible COI issues and I think that's a Delete. JMWt (talk) 19:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I find very little discussion of this concept by authors other than John Knox, and the article as written is an essay. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2023 (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.