Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Understanding 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Integrative Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability for this very recent book. Appears to be a promotional flyer. The refs appear to be self referential. Nothing that is independent and reliable to give any notability to the book itself. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Frankly, stridently self-promotional article copy. I don't believe there are any independent reviews of this work, and suspect that even the "academic" reviews quoted in the article are solicited, rather than stemming from an actual review in the conventional sense. Additionally, this is essentially a self-published work. The publisher, Praan Uitgeverij (Praan Group), conveniently comprises the author list. I don't think this is in G11 territory, but its nowhere close to meeting WP:NBOOK. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize that some aspects of Wikipedia's culture can be surprising. In order to "count" towards what the project calls notability, reviews and other discussions of a subject need to be independent of the subject, and published in a reliable source. The reviews and quotes given in the article at this time are all published in the book; they are not independent of it. Ideally, for this sort of subject, we'd be looking for literature reviews in peer reviewed journal articles, or discussions of the book in comparable works by recognized publishers. In this case, the book is very recently published. Perhaps there simply has not been time for those sorts of sources to be published. However, if appropriate sources don't exist yet, then it may simply be too soon for the article to exist as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete. These reviews are by very prominent people in the Netherlands. Example, Jos de Blok, CEO of the largest home health care company in the Netherlands. The fact that these people have reviewed makes this book significant. Second Example, Professor Mathieu Weggeman is a leading scholar on the topic of organisational innovation (subject of the book). These people do not lend their name just like that. I understand the concerns of self-references, but I am sure many people in the Netherlands would come up with more references in the coming days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teenupnaarp (talk • contribs) 21:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC) — Teenupnaarp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Blocked sockpuppets. Striking through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please Do Not Delete. The reviews are from notable people. However, the independent references can be further added to support. As mentioned above, may be in few days, some other users may post additional references especially from The Netherlands, where the work seems to be more popular. Markivnivan (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)— Markivnivan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Blocked sockpuppets. Striking through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Squeamish Ossifrage. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Please Do Not Delete. There are some citations available on the internet. The term intelligence is a high frequency keyword which shadows new concepts. We can wait and watch for sometime. 124.124.125.3 (talk) 05:38, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the publication does not meet the standards of WP:NBOOK. gidonb (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Delete. Integrative Intelligence is an upcoming concept. Springer Nature has published the author(s) in their book on this subject<ref>{{Cite book|url=http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-52231-9_21|title=Managing VUCA Through Integrative Self-Management|last=Bindlish|first=Puneet K.|last2=Nandram|first2=Sharda S.|last3=Joshi|first3=Ankur|date=2017|publisher=Springer International Publishing|isbn=9783319522302|editor-last=Nandram|editor-first=Sharda S.|series=Management for Professionals|pages=321–330|language=en|doi=10.1007/978-3-319-52231-9_21|editor-last2=Bindlish|editor-first2=Puneet K.}}</ref>. This book seems to be the first academic book dedicated on the subject. Examples of similar pages on wikipedia are Daniel Goleman's new book The Varieties of the Meditative Experience, Danah Zohar's concept of Spiritual intelligence. The page is indeed an informative one. 178.84.59.83 (talk) 05:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)— 178.84.59.83 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Blocked sockpuppets. Striking through. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment
  See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrative Intelligence
  gidonb (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — I've removed all quotes from 'reviews' that were not published independently but in the book itself. The notability of the book is not established by the content of the article. If it cannot be established, the article should be deleted. — Editør (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Egregious (self)promotion and sockpuppetry here and at the related walled garden Afd. A non-notable book which is really only referenced with affiliated sources. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because we do not publish original research. Bearian (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of reliable independent sources supporting its notability. Famous_dog (c) 07:48, 7 June 2017 (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.