Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/True self

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, fails WP:V. Recreate if you can provide reliable sources. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 06:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] True self

True self (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete this has been unsourced for 1.5 years and reads like a personal essay and OR. I am not sure that anyone can come up with any streamlined meaningful universally agreed upon definition of true self much less a coherent encyclopedic article about its significance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, the abstract concept of "true self" has been studied in psychology -- that is, the question of whether there is such an animal and what might be a means to discover it. There's a close relationship to consciousness, of course. There are sourceable religious aspects as well. --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unsourced original research. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, weakly. Perhaps this stub would benefit mostly at present from being stubbified further; but the concept seems to be easily widespread enough to support an article. If deleted, it should be without prejudice. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Unsourced or not, I believe that this could make a valuable encyclopedic entry. I dont have the knowledge to make it 'up to standard' but that is not to say that it wont ever be. The AfD process is to weed out the articles that wont ever be encyclopedic, this one will be. And the article does not have to be a 'universally agreed upon definition', that would be a editwar begging to happen. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. After all this time, it's still not an article. Regardless of originality of the term, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Doczilla (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into Self (spirituality), and perhaps create a redirect here to the Self dab page since it's a common, but ambiguous, term. There's no reason to have two separate stub articles (True self and Self (spirituality)) when we could consolidate their information and become closer to having one full-fledged article. -Silence (talk) 04:18, 8 February 2008 (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.