Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral art

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 merge to Ken Wilber. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Integral art[edit]

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

Seems to be a poorly curated and originally researched list of artists that are being proclaimed as emblematic of integral thought. jps (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Merge usable content into Wilber, or Integral theory, or somesuch William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No content worth saving. Not a coherent topic. Bhny (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable neologism. Merge with Ken Wilber. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:59, 27 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, — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 08:16, 3 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.