Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral Institute


 * 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 redirect to Integral theory (Ken Wilber). There does seem to be consensus for removing the content, and what arguments address the idea of a redirect seem in favor. There is not a specific consensus on the target of the redirect, I've picked one more or less on instinct, but this close does not preclude further discussion and retargeting of the redirect.

Delete and redirect would be an option, but policy prefers redirect to delete-under-redirect save for badly problematic content or (perhaps) to deal with problematic behavior. Neither is argued here, so plain redirect is appropriate here. joe deckertalk 00:33, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Integral Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Institute appears to no longer exist. Its brief life seems not to rise to the level of notability we would require for a Wikipedia article on an organization. jps (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands - no evidence of notability (one third-party RS in the whole article), little prospect of further. And that's without getting into the article reading like a press release - David Gerard (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This institute produced no prominent individuals, no influential studies or papers, funded no notable research, etc, etc. There's nothing at all to indicate any notability in the article, let alone outside sources (which are pretty sparse, and not very high quality). MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article does not seems to contain any high quality reliable independent secondary sources.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails notability. There are only a handful of mentions the google news search, none are mainstream, all are passing mentions (and none seem independent of the subject). There don't seem to be any independent sources covering it academic journals, only those directly related to Ken Wilber, the "founder", even then mostly passing mentions and no meaningful coverage. I haven't seen any good evidence that it actually existed IRL. —PermStrump  ( talk )  03:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Integral theory (Ken Wilber), which mentions it. Not enough reliable source coverage to justify a stand-alone article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * and that article looks pretty dubious too and could do with a thorough reference check and evaluation - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. —PermStrump  ( talk )  15:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * in fact, this is a walled garden across several self-referential categories - David Gerard (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can I amend my !vote to delete and Redirect to Ken Wilber? The institute is mentioned in both his BLP and in Integral theory (Ken Wilber). All of the other extraneous pages that had been created about his various integral theories were redirected back to his BLP, so it would be more consistent. —PermStrump  ( talk )  15:25, 16 May 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.