Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrative Intelligence


 * 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.  So Why  08:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Integrative Intelligence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a concept promoted by Sharda Nandram, Wim Keizer (wife and husband), and Puneet Bindlish. It had previously been used in a book title by Kevin Cashman. Imho the concept isn't notable yet. Before this nomination was the nomination of an article on a book by the same creators, Understanding Integrative Intelligence (nominated in Articles for deletion/Understanding Integrative Intelligence). An article on Sharda Nandram is in the making. I propose removing Integrative Intelligence per WP:NEO and WP:Too soon. gidonb (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * This delete discussion refers to the original article, Integrative Intelligence, and the articles that have been made since: integrative intelligence and integrative intelligence (psychology). gidonb (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - this appears to be simple marketing for a book. No evidence of any notability. The concept has no form.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

1. The three people Sharda et.al "authored" the book on the concept. It is indeed harsh and unfair in mentioning the word "...promoted...". (Please do not see everything as a sales pitch, but a humble contribution. There is still a difference between "Authoring" and "Promoting" in some countries). The authors come from a credible academic background with over 100+ publications in their research field in last 25 years, See: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=hi&q=nandram+sharda&btnG=&oq=Nandram
 * Delete New age babble. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Do not Delete

2. This is not a "New Age" babble. Springer Nature has published the author(s) in a book where there is mention of this concept

Suggested way forward: Integrative Intelligence is an upcoming concept, a constructive discussion can happen over WP:Too soon. 178.84.59.83 (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The term "Integrative Intelligence" has been in use for last 10-15 years. Incidentally there was no wikipedia article on it. This article has just been started with latest major references (from two books - "Understanding Integrative Intelligence" and "Managing VUCA through Integrative Self Management". ). Now that the article has been started, its just the matter of time, that the references from past many years would be arranged here by other people too. Some references, which are yet to be incorporated:
 * Do not Delete

1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Integrative+Intelligence%22

2. http://www.hbs.edu/about/video.aspx?v=1_8ealyr2h

3.http://www.hbs.edu/news/releases/Pages/william-connell-donates-10million.aspx

Markivnivan (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Blocked sockpuppets. Striking through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's many books and scholarly articles and a Forbes article using that term. There does not seem to be an entirely uniform meaning of it and if the article is biased towards the meaning Nandram & Co it should be balanced by improvements. Alternatively it could become a smaller section of another article, but I think it's fine as an article. --Fixuture (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Question: if different authors use the words "integrative intelligence" in such diverging ways, doesn't it imply that this is not an existing concept in psychology hence any meaning can be given to these words put together? I'm puzzled how the article nevertheless ends up being "fine". Maybe rethink that position? gidonb (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the meanings diverge much. It is a very important and notable concept which does exist but nobody seems to have written very extensively on an explanation of the term or standardized it (which is not necessarily a problem). Okay: the article might not be fine and probably needs to be changed (it also should end up way shorter). But not deleted. --Fixuture (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Only place we list very different concepts united under one term is disambiguation pages. As a disambiguation page the article would definitely be shorter. However, we would end up with only red links because none of the definitions is notable per se. So even this idea is a no go... gidonb (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I can see it's more or less is one concept applied under different contexts. --Fixuture (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * See my newest comment further below. It strongly undermines your claims.gidonb (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete The Forbes source -- which is from one of their online "contributors" -- seems to be for a different concept, from a different author, which happens to combine these two words. The article before us at this Afd is clearly a WP:COATRACK to promote the new book by Sharda S. Nandram, which is also at Afd. At best what we have here is a WP:SYNTH article to provide a foundation for promoting Nandram and his product. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Due to that the Forbes source should not be used or not be its only reference and the article edited so that it does not promote that new book or be biased. --Fixuture (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - this is not a thing in psychology - or anywhere else, for that matter. Although permitting it to remain would probably result in it becoming a WP:OR (franken)thing of our own making, as different editors added disconnected the sort of tidbits associable to a name this generic. Advocata (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * False. Please see the countless studies and books that use that term. --Fixuture (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * False. Please see the countless studies and books that use that term. --Fixuture (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The words integrative intelligence may appear in quite a few sources, but there's no notable concept here. Cashman's concept hasn't received much, if any, reliable secondary attention. The work of Nandram et al. almost certainly isn't notable, despite extensive efforts at promoting it. Several sources use the phrase in connection to the intelligence community, which is an entirely different thing that a psychology topic, but in any case don't appear to be treating the phrase as any specific term of art. Broadly taken, these are common words, and it's not uncommon for them to appear together. But that's not enough to warrant an article (much less an article dominated by Nandram's approach to the term, which is demonstrably non-notable). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are not "two words" − it's a concept. --Fixuture (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete because we don't recognise integrative medicine as a genuine thing either. Famous dog  (c) 07:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Those are entirely different things. Aren't they? Your argument doesn't make sense. --Fixuture (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - reading the comments here, I was quite dubious about this article, but a check on Google scholar shows the term being used in a number of RS srouces. The term seems to be used in various senses, it is used in a military intelligence sense, and a learning/teaching sense/information science sense. There does seem to be an esoteric angle on it, which I admit is worrying in that it may not be well founded. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:19, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Deathlibrarian, following this link, I see that the two words appear only 150 times together in Scholar (later insert:) Google Scholar. It's NOT a standing concept in Psychology, otherwise it would not be simple to give it another meaning every time. As an experiment, I performed a similar search on two words. This combination of words does not appear 150 time together, not 1500, not 15,000, not 150,000 but 563,000 times!!! Create the article two words here and now? gidonb (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not have another meaning every time. It is the same thing in general which is applied under various contexts. --Fixuture (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it carries very different meanings as clearly illustrated in the sources below. gidonb (talk) 07:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment--Fixuture Doesn't it have a use in the Military Intelligence context that's different to the psychology usage? Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. A very good point. That's why I'd propose moving this page to integrative intelligence (psychology). --Fixuture (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Insufficient evidence of notability. Insufficient evidence that it is even a thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:38, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you performed a proper web search engine search? Countless of books and studies use that term. It clearly exists and is notable. --Fixuture (talk) 00:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did do my own search. A web page using that term means nothing. You have to read the web pages and verify that they are about the same concept as the Wikipedia page being considered for deletion.


 * Do a web search on "Guy Macon" and one of the result will be [ http://xena.yuku.com/topic/2719 ], but that doesn't mean that the Xena Online Community is suddenly interested in me.


 * (Breaks into song:


 * Macon the Mighty,
 * Roams through the countryside,
 * He never needs a place to hide,
 * With Jimbo as his sidekick,
 * Editing his little wik...i,
 * Righting wrongs and singing songs,
 * Being mighty all day long,
 * He's Macon! He's Macon the Mighty!)


 * The problem is that you are not listening to what everyone else on this page is telling you. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks for your reply. However, I endorse not deleting pages just because their content does not properly reflect their article title's meaning. Instead those pages need to be improved so that they do so properly. Furthermore you said that there's no evidence of notability and existence which is arguably false as countless of books and studies use that term. I am listening what others are telling me on this page, did not dismiss anything they said without making a specific point and strongly support back-and-forth discussion. I only created replies which is a good thing for a healthy discussion which is what any article − which took the time and effort of people to create − deserves. Gidonb now made a good case for deletion below though. --Fixuture (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * STOP PINGING ME! When I post a comment I read the replies. Pings are for when you think the editor is not reading the replies (for example, when you reply to a comment made two years ago).


 * You are still not listening to what everyone else on this page is telling you. You keep up a steady logorrhea of comments, but you have utterly failed to persuade even a single person. Please go to WP:1AM, print it out, and read it slowly ten times. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * CommentJust running this search past some commercial and free searches, searching for the exact phrase. ProQuest Central gives me 24 articles, Google Books: 940 results, Academic Search Complete: only 9 results, Google Scholar gives me 150. So yes, the phrase may be coming up in the wrong sense, or may not be... hard to say. It's not appearing in article titles that often, that's for sure, which is not reassuring. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment It looks very random to me. I'm going to reiterate what I implied in the intro. This is not a war on "integrative intelligence". I stand in this totally without prejudice. All I did is note that there is not yet (hence WP:NEO and WP:Too soon) an agreed concept of Integrative Intelligence. It is mentioned here and there, usually very differently. This does not make it into a encyclopedic concept. We mirror the scientific and media "markets" and DO NOT lead any of these, otherwise we engage in WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. Imho, for "integrative intelligence" to get in the general direction of encyclopedic we need one of the very different fields, where it has been mentioned, to include it as a concept with definition (versus an explanatory word combination using the meaning of each word separately) in an introductory textbook or scientific glossary with a major publisher. Two textbook definitions is safer but I do not see even one. This is not a high bar. To illustrate just how very problematic the current situation is, I have collected below 10 random sources that use "integrative intelligence". gidonb (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your in-depth reply. This is by far the best argument for deletion here and I thank you for the research you made for it. I'd also like to note that I didn't have time for a lengthy research into the sources that use the term so far.
 * I do not think that sources #1 - #5 & #9 are at odds. Actually I do think they somewhat even reinforce each other to some extend as well as extend the concept (e.g. to different areas).
 * #6 is imo the new-age babble criticized by some in here.
 * #7 & #10 is another concept of the military & intelligence. This was also noted by Deathlibrarian above and I suggested moving this page to integrative intelligence (psychology) or alike due to that.
 * #8 seems to be a derivative of the term to AI. This should probably be noted in the article.
 * The problem here imo is that sources #1 - #5 & #9 don't give much detail about the concept.
 * I guess that's where Sharda Nandram's book and studies come in as they do give more detail about the concept.
 * Now I think people in here immediately jumped on it assuming it was marketing and new-age babble and overreacted/misreacted by calling for outright deletion.
 * I still support keeping it and instead to move and overhaul (including signficant trimming) the article.
 * However I now do see that WP:TOOSOON / WP:NEO could be regarded as to somewhat apply to the article and think that this could warrant deletion if the community decides so.
 * I wished we could have had this discussion before most of the votes come in though.
 * Anyways I'm glad that we could get a proper argumentation about deletion going which is what imo every article that took the time and effort of people to create deserves.
 * --Fixuture (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad you liked it! Not everything we can do in the discussion space, however, we should do in the  article space. We can do a little WP:OR to form an educated opinion in a discussion. In the article space, we need to stand on broader shoulders than mine to expand our encyclopedia, while preserving the necessary quality. gidonb (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Source #1 Sky Above Clouds: Finding Our Way Through Creativity, Aging, and Illness

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0199371415

Wendy L. Miller, Gene D. Cohen - 2016

"Integrative intelligence is the synthetic result of developmental intelligence—the awareness of going through a process of coming more and more into one's creative potential by using our resources, and by integrating the work it takes to move through the necessary developmental phases of inner and outer growth."

"For me, the art of synergistic relationships in integrative intelligence leads us to healing and to wholeness."

"This is integrative intelligence—a wisdom that honored the truth and vulnerability of her experience"

"We are our integrative intelligence."

Source #2 The Science of Money: How to Increase Your Income and Become Wealthy

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1469066513

Brian Tracy - 2017

"It's called the law of integrative intelligence. All these pieces of intelligence start to integrate and form a pattern or a design or a template whereby you can see an opportunity to create or build wealth that you hadn't seen before."

Source #3 Musical processes, resources, and technologies - Page 187

https://books.google.com/books?id=TaoQAQAAMAAJ

Kay Kaufman Shelemay - 1990

"It is still a comparative rarity to come across a commercial recording of folk or ethnic music which is well-conceived as to subject matter, efficiently produced, technically satisfying, and accurately and thoroughly annotated, so that the consumer receives the impression of some kind of integrative intelligence at work."

Source #4 The Many Faces of Giftedness: Lifting the Masks - Page 121

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0766800067

Alexinia Young Baldwin - 1999

"The data is broken into two distinct areas, Integrative Intelligence and Dispersive Intelligence. The first area, Integrative Intelligence, groups together subtests that have as their connection the "capacity to discern broad patterns and connections in visual or verbal information" (p. 45)."

"High scores on subtests included in Integrative Intelligence provide evidence that such students can think abstractly, see patterns, and make connections among ideas — all pieces of creative productivity" (p. 46).

Source #5 Universitas: The Social Restructuring of American Undergraduate Education

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0275955842

Tom Boudreau - 1998

"As such, full-ground thinking is integrative intelligence. It provides the essential power of perspective, perception and linguistic understanding between the different parts, as well as between the parts and the whole."

Source #6 Psychology for Educators - Page 220

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0170122123

Wilma Vialle, Pauline Lysaght, Irina Verenikina - 2005

"The central theme that permeates all these theories is that spirituality is an integrative intelligence. By this we mean that the idea of connectedness works on several levels: it involves connectedness to others, to nature, and to the wider cosmos, but it also involves connectedness within the individual, integrating mind, heart, body and soul."

Source #7 Intelligence Success and Failure: The Human Factor - Page 62

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0199341753

Uri Bar-Joseph, Rose McDermott - 2017

"The RU was the main supplier of foreign political and military information not only to the army but also to the Politburo and to Stalin himself. It had an Information Department, that produced integrative intelligence documents and following the occupation of Poland and France it proved its value by producing excellent analyses of the German military performance in these operations. 42"

Source #8 Artificial General Intelligence - Page 119

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=3540686770

Ben Goertzel, Cassio Pennachin - 2007

"Our primary schema and predicate learning approach is to fix evolutionary programming's scaling problems using a number of integrative-intelligence-oriented tricks."

Source #9 Hope and the Future: An Introduction to the Concept of Cultural Maturity

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0974715492

Charles Johnston - 2014

"Finally, and especially relevant to the concept of Cultural Maturity, the same more consciously integrative intelligence that we see in the “seasoning” stage of a creative act orders the unique developmental capacities—the wisdom—of a lifetime's second half."

Source #10 Intelligence Elsewhere: Spies and Espionage Outside the Anglosphere

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1589019571

Philip H. J. Davies, Kristian C. Gustafson - 2013

"In Davies's view, the British definition of intelligence points toward an integrative intelligence culture that is prone to groupthink. The opposite American definition of intelligence would lead toward a disintegrative culture that is characterized by turf wars.44"

Comment So what is integrative intelligence? gidonb (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Wendy L. Miller, Gene D. Cohen: The synthetic result of developmental intelligence
 * 2) Brian Tracy: The process of compounding skills and [financial] information
 * 3) Kay Kaufman Shelemay: An impression created by well-conceived subject matter, efficiently produced, technically satisfying, and accurately and thoroughly annotated [music].
 * 4) Alexinia Young Baldwin: The "capacity to discern broad patterns and connections in visual or verbal information"
 * 5) Tom Boudreau: Full-ground thinking
 * 6) Wilma Vialle, Pauline Lysaght, Irina Verenikina: If the idea of connectedness works on several levels
 * 7) Uri Bar-Joseph, Rose McDermott: Its toolbox can fix evolutionary programming's scaling problems
 * 8) Ben Goertzel, Cassio Pennachin: A combined approach in artificial intelligence
 * 9) Charles Johnston: in its conscious form seen in “seasoning” stage of a creative act
 * 10) Philip H. J. Davies, Kristian C. Gustafson: as a culture leads to groupthink

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – XboxGamer 22408 talk 02:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all the delete arguments above are good, but I'm especially convinced by Squeamish Ossifrage's. Two common words that appear beside each other in different contexts do not make the concept being discussed here notable. This is something we deal with at RMs frequently when looking at n-grams, and it occurrence is normally discounted then because we can't control for people using common words to mean different things. I don't see evidence of notability, so this should be deleted as a neologism. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Oh. My. God. Is this discussion STILL going on? This is a poorly-defined, variously-defined, not-particularly-notable neologism (as several editors have repeatedly stated) and it frankly looks like a blatant attempt to sell a book. Only seems to be keeping this discussion going. SURELY we have sufficient consensus now?  Famous dog  (c) 08:56, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete In case this wasn't completely obvious already: Praan, Nandram's publisher is not a reputable academic publisher, but a purveyor of new age rubbish. Mduvekot (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I am unwatching this page as a waste of time. (Not a !vote: I did that already.) This should have been deleted instead of relisted. The two keep !votes are based upon doing a google search and claiming as sources pages that talk about completely different things or are just two words next to each other the way "Guy Macon" is found when you search the page at [ http://xena.yuku.com/topic/2719 ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Can we finally close this as a clear delete? It was never established that there is a case for keep. It's unclear why this was relisted. gidonb (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2017 (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.