Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of integral thinkers and supporters

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of integral thinkers and supporters

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is part of a long-standing WP:Walled garden of Integral theory (Ken Wilber) which was built at about the time that Wikipedia was first developing its rules for sourcing. Notice that the sources seem to all run afoul of WP:FRIND. In looking for replacement sources for "thinkers and supporters" that were not caught up in the belief system, I came up woefully short. jps (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are independent or reliable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eggishorn. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list article could be replaced with a category in the unlikely event that we have enough articles relating to Integral Yoga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs)
Delete not a single good source. (I particularly enjoy how the Michael Crichton listing that actually admits right in the article that there's no good source.) ApLundell (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty much the opposite of a well-sourced list. XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly unsourced. Cited sources on the other hand are unreliable. Mosesheron (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Michel Crichton. -Roxy . wooF 13:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, this is a sort of "legacy" article, if done by AfC today it wouldn't be allowed. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources present are reliable.Aloolkaparatha (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.