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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integral leadership (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)

Essentially, original research trying to connect business management(?) with integral theory. Major violation of WP:FRINGE to boot. jps (talk) 02:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:N. Entire books are devoted to/elaborate upon the topic. For examples, see [1], [2],[3], [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article subject passes notability but agree that article needs significant improvement and addition of secondary sources - is currently violating NOR due to the lack of citations. Depthdiver (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete and merge with Wilber. Doesn't seem to be notable William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Wilber. Neologism not in general currency. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Passes WP:N. No objections to tagging it with relevant copyediting templates. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per sources cited above. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2013 (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.