Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral economics


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Integral economics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A combination of promotional copy and word salad. It's possible that the topic of this article is deserving of coverage in Wikipedia, but after a careful reading of the article I couldn't determine what its topic was.

Moreover, the use of phrasings such as " 'paradigmatic' methodology" and "the nature of human existence has been determinately shaped as the functional ‘value’ derived through the translation and practical application of that same knowledge" suggests that the article has been written to be incomprehensible in order to inoculate it against criticism ("you just don't understand the subject").

I don't know whether we ought to have an article on this topic, but I think the article we have is not appropriate for Wikipedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've made some efforts to clean this article up, but I must say it is still a bit of a mess. A lot of the article appears to be synthesis, taking economics sources that don't mention Integral theory and interpreting them as saying things that support that theory, and taking Integral theory sources that don't talk about economics and interpreting them as applying to that subject. There does appear to be at least one source that specifically discusses economics and Integral theory together, but I'm not sure if it is enough to support a freestanding article. The best solution might be to merge the small amount of relevant material into the existing section on economics in the Integral movement article. Or perhaps there are other editors more familiar with the literature on this subject who could provide more relevant sources to flesh out a full article. --RL0919 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubify, per Google Books and Google Scholar references, this is a real subject, although the content of the current article, written by Ron Paul enthusiast User:Gospelnous is largely a fantasy. An accurate, non-original research article would focus on economic analyses produced by followers of Sri Aurobindo, Mirra Alfassa, Ken Wilber, and associated figures. Such as:    &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed much of the offending material. I've not yet re-written with new sources. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete without prejudice to re-creation in English. This would appear to be a coatrack article designed to promote the views of the "Integral Institute", a think tank of dubious notability in itself, whose purpose (from that page) is "to gather and attempt to integrate the various viewpoints found in a number of major fields of knowledge. For example, the Integral Institute currently has a number of branches including Integral psychology, Integral business, Integral politics, Integral medicine, Integral education, Integral law and criminal justice, Integral art, and Integral spirituality."  Given this vague mandate, it isn't surprising that this article contains large swatches of content that  no reasonable person can be expected to make sense of: Adapting the traditional lens of economics in favor of an integral approach might begin with a map (AQAL) utilized in concert with a vehicle or 'operating system' (IOS). Where the first affords a sense of orientation and familiarity with the terrain, the second provides the means of effectively communicating and actually traversing the territory. Google Scholar contains a number of hits, but it's by no means obvious that any of them are talking about this particular organization's views.  Whatever they are. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Smerdis and I sometimes agree; this article is very close to nonsense.    DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 27 October 2009 (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.