Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Integrative Rehabilitation

Dear Mr. Fae,

I am not sure whether you did see my last post on this article's discussion talkpage - which I am again quoting hereunder:


 * Dear Mr. Fae,


 * Thanks once again for your review and precise feedback.


 * I surely do not wish to commit the mistake of including a neologism like “i-Rehabilitation” – hence would be removing all such references from the present article. Further, I intend to rename the article to “Integrative Rehabilitation” now itself – rather than appearing to be holding on to another neologism “e-Rehabilitation”.


 * The point regarding mix-up with a spiritual interpretation as on the Scientology website – I personally, had quoted this example not only to present the different ways in which “integrated rehabilitation” is being approached by different groups over period of time alongside the backdrop of a technical framework put forth by WHO for the same only in 2001 – but more specifically because this particular group talks about an “auditing” process to maximize human potential. However, I myself also do not visualize this article to be digressing from the technical interpretation for the term “Integrative Rehabilitation” – hence, I think I should leave it to your able judgment or even the other contributors of future - to decide if and when the reference to this specific example be modified / omitted from this article.


 * Thus, I am adding the required link to “Integrative Rehabilitation” on the “Rehabilitation” disambiguation page – under “Other Uses” heading – and do not wish to fork out another article to deal with the spiritual interpretation of the same term at this stage. I hope this meets your agreement.


 * Regards and best wishes, jn.mdel --Jn.mdel (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hence, from my end I am making all efforts to slowly make this first article comply to all the NOT-TO-DO points - infact, originally, I had mentioned "Rehabilitation" as the category for this article - thinking that a mention on the "Rehabilitation disambiguation page" means categorisation - but which was pointed out to me for updation by someone today only - and then I spent a good two hours looking for the appropriate categorisation - simply to avoid this same situation of mixing with telerehabilitation - and eventually i did come up with the category as "Human development" for this article - but by the time i finished my search, I got this new message that the article is up for deletion again.

I am not sure what to do next.

Regards, Jn.mdel--Jn.mdel (talk) 15:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It would seem much easier to continue working on your userfied draft as I have advised more than once. The fundamental problems of the text appearing to be an original essay rather than an encyclopaedia entry and the weak relationship to the sources quoted will remain fundamental issues. Fæ (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)