Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral City (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  17:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Integral City
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BK, it seems. The multiple reviews claimed in the previous nomination do not seem to confer proper notability on the subject, per se. The existence of reviews can be an indicator of notability, but it does not seem to be enough in this case and it appears to me that many of the reviews are little more than back scratching (based more on sympathetic relationships with the author due to ideological reasons rather than a serious review). See related Articles for deletion/Marilyn Hamilton jps (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * delete book fails GNG. It is not even listed in Open Library per this and the reviews cited are from a few fringey/alt journals - no acknowledgement/discussion outside its bubble. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that the previous AFD was closed by a non-admin after only 2 editors had participated. —PermStrump  ( talk )  23:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom, fails NBOOK due to lack of coverage in third-party sources. —PermStrump  ( talk )  23:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, all sources appear to be in the integral thought walled garden. No evidence of notability in the wider world, no evidence of critical review - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per WP:NBOOK #1 it has been reviewed in World Future Review, Kosmos Journal, Futurist, Alternatives Journal, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, and EnlightenNext. These are all quality reliable sources indexed by EBSCOHost one of the largest library services making them available to schools and library collections. They are not "fringey/alt journals" or "thought walled garden", which are pejoratives not objective examinations of source reliability. The noms theory of "back scratching" is unsupported. --  Green  C  00:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Being indexed only by ebscohost usually doesn't count towards notability. —PermStrump  ( talk )  01:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The reliability of sources that counts towards the notability of the article. --  Green  C  02:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Green Cardamom has listed several sources that should satisfy WP:NBOOK. Only two are necessary to meet that criterion. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the sources given have been discounted too hastily. The Canadian Journal of Urban Research is published by the University of Winnipeg, and the editorial board is composed of faculty from the University. The principal editor (also the book review editor) is Marc Vachon, an associate professor and head of the Department of Geography. I see no immediate reason as to why a book review in an academic journal should be seen as less reliable than, say, a book review in a newspaper, which would surely qualify as a reliable source. Now to address concerns of "back scratching." The review from the Canadian Journal of Urban Research is hardly favorable toward Hamilton's book. The review states that the book is filled with "laudable" but "vacuous" statements, and that its organization is "somewhat jumbled." This is definitely a critical review. The other journals do carry definite ideologies, but that doesn't mean they should be immediately dismissed. WP:RS states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." The important thing is checking whether the biased source has editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Based on its guidelines for contributors, I suggest that the Alternatives Journal meets this criteria. The review from the Alternatives Journal is not entirely favorable toward the book either, and disagrees with the book's ultimate conclusion. For these reasons, I support keeping the article. Altamel (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The criteria for RS is different than notability, which requires that the sources be "independent of the subject", as does WP:NFRINGE, which covers this topic as well. So far we have one independent source (Marc Vachon). —PermStrump  ( talk )  02:30, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All the source are independent. Can't demonstrate an absence of Conflict of Interest. --  Green  C  02:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Please give evidence that Alternatives Journal is not independent of the subject. I don't believe that sharing a common ideology is the same thing as not being independent. The Alternatives Journal says it focuses on environmental journalism. This is not necessarily the same thing as integral theory; if there is evidence that the editorial board of Alternatives Journal is affiliated with the integral theory movement, I would like to see it. Altamel (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I forgot to mention something. The Alternatives Journal used to be published by the University of Waterloo, and left the University in 2012 . However, the review that Green Cardamom found was published in June 2009, before the journal left the university. Altamel (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There doesn't have to be a financial conflict of interest in order for a source to be non-independent. Sources aren't independent if they're closely affiliated, i.e., written by other integral theorists. —PermStrump  ( talk )  02:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please name the source and describe why it has a conflict of interest with this book. -- Green  C  02:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see the OP and first several !votes. —PermStrump  ( talk )  03:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There is zero evidence of a conflict of interest in any of these source. --  Green  C  03:38, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, it isn't a "conflict of interest" that is concerning. It is the concept of independence which is basically a question of whether the source in question is ideologically supportive of the broader fringe community. To take a different example, it's like asking whether a particular creationist idea is only mentioned in the sources written by other creationists. jps (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok then please list the sources and describe why they are not independent. It's not self-evident. -- Green  C  14:31, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Done so below. You seem to have not either not done your homework or are willfully obfuscating obvious problems here. jps (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And I disagree with your characterization of the sources, as described below. As for "willfully obfuscating", we can agree to disagree without assumptions of bad faith. I'm not "willfully obfuscating", are you willfully obfuscating? -- Green  C  13:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Discussion of sources
 * Comment - For reference, the editorial board of Alternatives Journal at the time its book review of Integral City was published. Altamel (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment The six sources used as book reviews:
 * EnlightenNext is a spiritual/region focused magazine part of Andrew Cohen (spiritual teacher)'s organization. Used as a reliable source in about 21 other articles.
 * Kosmos Journal is a spiritual/religion focused journal founded in 2005. According to WorldCat it's carried by one Library University of North Carolina. I can find no evidence of fringe; for example on the question of creationism they have essays that refute creationism. Used as a reliable source in about 14 other articles.
 * The Futurist. "The Futurist was nominated for a 2007 Utne Independent Press Award for Best Science and Technology Coverage." The magazine has been published since 1965, has top-tier writers like Kevin Kelley and Lester Brown, is often cited by other news orgs, etc.. (hard to tell number of cites in other articles due to common name)
 * World Future Review. Same organization that publishes The Futurist, this is their academic journal which operates independently. I see no problems with fringe in this journal. Used as a reliable source in 3 other articles.
 * Alternatives Journal - already described by Altamel above. Used as a reliable source in about 40 other articles.
 * Canadian Journal of Urban Research - already described by Altamel above. Used as a reliable source in at least 8 other articles.


 * (please leave replies below not inline above thanks). Based on the above, these are all reliable sources used throughout Wikipedia. If there is an dependence problem than it needs to be demonstrated with evidence. It is not self-evident, just the opposite, these are reliable sources which by definition means they are independent. --  Green  C  16:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

For the sources not yet discussed above by those who oppose your peculiar blinkeredness:
 * Articles for deletion/EnlightenNext (2nd nomination). Obviously not WP:FRIND.
 * Kosmos Journal is run by the founder of Transpersonal Psychology, Nancy B. Roof. Obviously not WP:FRIND.
 * The Futurist and World Future Review are both publications of the same entity: the World Future Society which is an adherent to the auxiliary fringe ideology Singularitarianism, directly interrelated with the integral theory and transhumanism ideas of Ken Wilbur. Obviously not WP:FRIND.
 * The person who wrote the review for Alternatives Journal is Chris Lowry whose qualifications for reviewing such a book seem to be that he has in the past written for groups interested in sustainability. As such, this seems a rather weak source, notwithstanding that the review is short and discusses a different book at the same time. This is not a serious review, but instead is the kind of filler content that many smaller journals use to hold reader interest. It's basically the equivalent to a review on a blog.
 * As PermStrump indicates above, Canadian Journal of Urban Research is just about the only review which seems to be legitimately without issues. That's one source. That's not "multiple" independent sources.

Please try to be more careful with your evaluations. jps (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, we can cross the Canadian Journal of Urban Research source off the list too. See my response below. *JK I conflated this one with the WFS source.* —PermStrump  ( talk )  19:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC) *Updated 22:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)*
 * jps, thank you for your substantive analysis of the sources above. I don't quite agree with you that Lowry's review should be considered "filler content", especially as the reviewer raises several points against the book. It would be ideal if this Wikipedia article could be supported by more sources on the same caliber as the Canadian Journal of Urban Research, but in my opinion the Alternatives Journal review meets the threshold of RS. Of course, we can leave that for other !voters to decide. Altamel (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Answer:
 * EnlightenNext AfD'd.. if a source is notable is unrelated to reliability.
 * Kosmos Journal.. if Transpersonal Psychology was the subject of the book, I could see your point, but it has no relation to the book under discussion. There's no dependence between the ideas of the book, and the Kosmos Journal.
 * The Futurist and World Future Review.. if the Singularity was the subject of the book, I could see your point, but it has nothing to do with the book. Also to say they are an "adherent" is questionable, see the About Us page, nothing about Singularity. Please don't artificially inflate criticisms without evidence.
 * Alternatives Journal.. Chris Lowry is qualified to write a book review. Who determines that is the source where the book review is published. That is why we have a rule about using reliable sources.
 * You haven't demonstrated a dependence problem with this particular book (the subject of the AfD) and these particular sources. Look I can dig up dirt on just about any periodical and label them fringe. The question is if there is a dependency problem with the ideas of this book and the sources in question. -- Green  C  19:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Here is my evaluation of the 6 sources mentioned so far:
 * EnlightenNext: Non-independent, integral publication that was deleted at AFD for not being notable outside of the integral bubble.
 * Kosmos Journal: Non-independent, trivial coverage . Kosmos has almost no online footprint outside of its own website and facebook page (plus the non-independent thing that jps mentioned).
 * The Futurist: Non-independent, trivial coverage . This is a really short review (4 sentences total) in a non-notable magazine (The Futurist links to a disamb page that mentions The Futurist with a link to World Future Review), plus the non-independent thing that jps mentioned.
 * World Future Review: Trivial, not-actually-scholarly, non-independent . World Future Society considers this their "academic" journal and it's apparently peer-reviewed, but considering "Futurism" is definitively not an academic subject and I don't see independent commentators considering it an academic journal, IMO a book review in this journal is not serious coverage worth mentioning (plus the non-independent thing that jps mentioned).
 * Alternatives Journal: Weak source per above: "The person who wrote the review for Alternatives Journal is Chris Lowry whose qualifications for reviewing such a book seem to be that he has in the past written for groups interested in sustainability. As such, this seems a rather weak source, notwithstanding that the review is short and discusses a different book at the same time. This is not a serious review, but instead is the kind of filler content that many smaller journals use to hold reader interest. It's basically the equivalent to a review on a blog."
 * Canadian Journal of Urban Research: Trivial, not-actually-scholarly, not-likely-independent . The review reads like a fluff piece and based on the author's (Rick Docksai) linkedin profile, he doesn't have specific experience or education related to urban planning, so it's not a scholarly piece and it's seeming more and more like a fluff piece (aka trivial). Plus, Docksai used to work for the World Future Society and there are other indications based on googling him that he's involved with the integral movement (example). *I accidentally conflated this one with the WFS source. Take 2: In-depth, non-trivial coverage, though still ends up pointing towards to book's lack of notability outside of the integral bubble anyway as the last sentence of the review says: "the book is likely to remain marginal within the broader urban discourse, and appeal mostly to those interested in exploring Wilber’s integral theory."*
 * All of these publications may or may not (my guess is not) have been appropriately used as reliable sources in other articles, but regardless, that doesn't speak to this book's notability outside of integral theorists. Pending in-depth/non-trivial coverage in at least two solidly reliable and independent sources, there's still no indication to me that this book is notable outside of the integral theory bubble (which is hardly notable itself outside of its own circle and the WP:Fringe theories/noticeboard). —PermStrump  ( talk )  19:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC) *Updated 22:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)*
 * PermStrump, you don't even have the author for the Canadian Journal of Urban Research review correct. The author is Sharon Ackerman; Docksai is the author of the article from the World Future Review. Please take another look. Altamel (talk) 20:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Futures studies (not "Futurism") is absolutely an academic field. You keep confusing notability with reliability. There are 10s of thousands of reliable sources (academic journals etc) that are not notable on Wikipedia. Likewise there are notable sources on Wikipedia that are not reliable sources. The idea that Chris Lowry is "unqualified" to write a book review makes no sense, his qualification is being published in a reliable source. He doesn't need to pass a second higher level of qualification. The source Alternatives Journal is either reliable or not, we don't second guess their editorial decision to publish a book review.   --  Green  C  21:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops. You're right. I did mix them up by accident. I guess I had too many tabs open at one time. I corrected my previous comments about the CJUR source. I'll respond to your other comments in a few. —PermStrump  ( talk )  22:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, thanks for the correction. The mark of a seasoned Wikipedian is that they have crashed their browser by trying to research too many sources at once. Altamel (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that the undeniable connections between the Integral walled garden here on Wikipedia with transhumanism, transpersonal psychology, and other New-Age-related ideas are unmistakeable. If you are not aware of them, I encourage you to do some research on the subject. As for future studies (which you unhelpfully try to disambiguate from futurism as somehow legitimized simply because it is the academic arm of the community), it is fairly undeniable that the subject has been for many years looked on with rolled eyes by many in the academy as being willing to accommodate the fringe as Wikipedia would define it. e.g. The connections to Integral Theory are easily googleable -- connections which are not accommodated in, say, architecture, urban planning, sociology, or systems engineering where the ideas that are the ostensible subject of the book actually are evaluated. The lack of any notice whatsoever from serious architects, urban planners, sociologists, or systems engineers is a giant red flag and the discoverable connections of the supposed "reliable sources" to the ideological bent of the author cannot be so easily dismissed out-of-hand as you are wont to do. jps (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Future studies is an academic field of study, it's not the same as Futurism which is a 19th century Italian art movement. Academic examples include the Future of Humanity Institute est. 2005 at Oxford University, plus many others, plus government organizations. Calling Futures studies "fringe" is not supported on Wikipedia. Linking to a contrarian-opinion Wired magazine article dated 2003 as proof of anything is not helpful. It's also not helpful to draw a connection between transhumanism, transpersonal psychology, and other "New-Age-related ideas" when no such connection has been shown to exist with the book. "Easily googlable" means nothing, I don't know what your talking about, again not helpful. Whatever you think of the topic of the book, the question is if it is notable and that is determined by book reviews in reliable sources. --  Green  C  14:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The FHI is not something I'd put forward as an example of the academic mainstream, really - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's an academic research center. Along with many others. Futures studies started with the Pentagon in the 1960s, and then academia picked up on it feeding research and graduates into government programs, and government providing grants to academia. There is also private sector, such as RAND corporation and other groups. -- Green  C  15:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your second and third sentences are actually non sequitur to your first - FHI was a vanity project from a wealthy donor. (Compare its close associate MIRI, which is the same sort of organisation but without a university's imprimatur.) It's certainly academic, but it's no normative example of such - David Gerard (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * First off research centers are started with the help of private donors all the time, as are cancer hospitals and other things, it's how Universities work. And where they get grant money to write reports is another question entirely. Anyway, I'm glad to hear you agree that it's certainly academic. -- Green  C  16:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize for saying futurism instead of futurist. The point is, though, that this is a WP:Walled garden within Wikipedia closely connected to other walled gardens including the one associated with "integral theory". I do not deny that future studies have become the hobby horse of well-regarded academicians, but I do not find evidence that this is a "discipline" in the same fashion that the other academic departments I list are. That problems were identified with this 13 years ago in reliable sources is all I was getting at by linking to the wired source. I am a little confused as to how an editor who has read the review in the Canadian Journal of Urban Research could plausibly feign ignorance that the book is part of New Age speculations. jps (talk) 15:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * +1. Actual experts in the fields the book purports to cover ignore it; the only people paying it attention are fellow inhabitants of the fringe - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Books can be notable regardless of subject matter. The question comes down if the sources that book is reviewed in are reliable sources for reviewing this book on this topic. -- Green  C  14:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So that'll be "no" then - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes  02:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: It's flaky woo, but it's notable flaky woo. Adequate indicia of notability.  Montanabw (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. A book with only 51 GS cites in a high-citation field does not rise to the level of notability required for the existence of an encyclopedia article regarding the book.  The reviews for the book appear mostly in fringey places like walled-garden futurist publications, not the kind of sources required per WP:FRIND.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Author article just killed at AFD. So, nonnotable author with a few reviews not from publications in the fields it claims to address - David Gerard (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No one bothered to work on or defend that article, which likely actually could be notable and recreated at any time with appropriate new sourcing. It has no relation this AfD. Also we don't "kill" articles. --  Green  C  14:19, 10 September 2016 (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.