Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral psychology


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Integral psychology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A synthesis of many different ideas, there is no reliable source that connects the disparate thinkers proposals together. Also, a problem in terms of WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article cites sources published by John Wiley and SUNY, among others. These are not reliable sources? &mdash; goethean 19:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Entire books are devoted to/elaborate upon the topic; passes WP:N. For starters, see:, , , , . Northamerica1000(talk) 22:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep the article needs some work but the topic seems definitely notable as per references mentioned and both prominent individual Ken Wilber and institutional home California Institute of Integral Studies Depthdiver (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Non notable neologism. Merge with Ken Wilber. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Goethean. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2013 (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.