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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integral Transformative Practice (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)

Fails our WP:NFRINGE guideline for fringe theories/practices that are notable. No outside notice of this peculiar practice means we probably shouldn't have a dedicated article on it. jps (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it is fringe, and there are not independent references. The gruesome Scourge of Trumpton 13:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No substance beyond a narrative about this single group, no outside points of view or sources. The general concept (and criticisms) is covered in Integral_theory_(Ken_Wilber).Cyrej (talk) 22:23, 15 November 2015 (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.