Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge integration map


 * 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.  Sandstein  13:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Knowledge integration map

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A number of reasons:
 * Created by, who is also the inventor of this concept and the only significant contributor to the page. This does not seem to give much indication of notability, if no-one else has felt the need to edit it in 2 years; it seems to be entirely self-promotion.


 * Likewise, as far as I can make out, the sources on the article are written by Schwendimann or by their supervisor Marcia Linn - or are about concept maps, not "knowledge integration maps". Significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject? No.


 * There's a certain amount of what may be copyvio - and  both contain sentences from the article.


 * It's a mass of incomprehensible jargon. If we were going to have an article on the subject, "can't get there from here". Pinkbeast (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The entry is supported by references from peer-reviewed journals, book chapters, and conference presentations. I disagree with the reviewer. Concept maps appear in many different forms (as shown by the links on the 'concept map' site). It is important to cover the range of different concept maps, not just the generic entry on 'concept maps'. I consider the entry on 'Knowledge Integration Maps' an interesting contribution. Knowledge Integration Maps are a form of concept map that combine elements of traditional concept maps with Venn diagrams. The Wikipedia article has been rewritten based on existing publications on Knowledge Integration Maps. All the used publications are referenced in the article. The reviewer should be more specific what jargon he/she doesn't understand. With more specific (and constructive feedback), the article could be revised accordingly to improve readability. (Response added by originally, mangling the deletion rationale).


 * Disintegrate as a WP:NEOLOGISM that hasn't caught on. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

-> Reply: Knowledge Integration Maps are tools in the Knowledge Integration framework which has been extensively been published. Additionally, Knowledge Integration Maps have been mentioned by other people as a form of concept mapping, e.g. http://kairos.laetusinpraesens.org/callosum_m_h_4

-> From reading the article, Knowledge Integration Maps are a specific form of concept map. To distinguish this form from other forms, it seems justified to use a specific term.

As the author of the article, I'd like to clarify that Knowledge Integration Maps have been presented to the research community as well as teacher communities. Both researches and teachers considered Knowledge Integration Maps a valuable new form of concept map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bschwendimann (talk • contribs) 13:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is a good amount of scholarly literature on "knowledge maps", but that appears to be about something else. The only research hits I see on "Knowledge integration map" invariably says something along the lines of "introducing a novel kind of concept map", which would suggest the idea has not (yet) caught on.  At most, it could warrant a couple sentence mention at concept map, but I am doubtful even on that.  Pinging  who accepted this at AfC in case I missed something. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2015 (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.