Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrative Rehabilitation

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Integrative Rehabilitation[edit]

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

The sources do not support the term "Integrative Rehabilitation" or the previous terms attempted of "e-Rehabilitation" and "i-Rehabilitation". This article has previously been redirected, userfied and recreated. This appears to be an original neologism for a religious/spiritual concept which may be confused with concepts such as telerehabilitation. The article actively confuses broad concepts such as "culture" with religious promotional concepts used by Scientology, MGRM ("May God Rehabilitate Mankind") and Dayal Bagh. The article is an open-ended user essay based on an incoherent collection of sources and so fails WP:OR, WP:IINFO and WP:NPOV.

Refer to existing discussions at Talk:E-rehabilitation and User_talk:Fæ#Regarding_"E-Rehabilitation". Fæ (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 14:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. a term that is used to describe one of the modern approaches to understanding the term “Rehabilitation” – which necessarily does not imply a clinical or a medical situation requiring post-treatment or post-recovery rehabilitative measures. Instead, it emphasises upon an individual-to-society approach - relying on recognising the individuality of each person as a sum total of his/her genetic legacy and their own individual exposures and experiences over time, which are retained by them as memories which in-turn shape their eventual personalities. Thus, it recognizes each person to be a combination of “Nature” and “Nurture” – which maintains a by-default complementary relationship with its surroundings. "Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion." - David Hume - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

please see the discussion page for this afd also--Jn.mdel (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dear Sirs, I have updated the article furthermore and am reiterating hereunder multiple reasons why this article needs to be retained and hence answering all the concerns point-wise:

1. The concern – “the sources do not support the term "Integrative Rehabilitation" or the previous terms attempted of "e-Rehabilitation" and "i-Rehabilitation"” – has been more than adequately addressed in the article discussion page – wherein even the administrator who has nominated this article would concede that at no point was the article even intending to be similar to “telerehabilitation” – and only the earlier title of this article was “e-rehabilitation” which meant “encompassing rehabilitation” – and which was pointed out to be a “neologism” – hence, corrected to “Integrative Rehabilitation” (infact “i-rehabilitation” was only discussed and not even used as a title at any point of time).

And the fact that “integrative rehabilitation” is being extensively used in the sources quoted till-date is quite evident from the current updated article content and the cited examples – all of which expressly state in their publications / websites about commitment to encompassing and integrated development and/or rehabilitation and/or evolution of common masses – and not just MEDICAL or CLINICAL cases, to harness the human potential to its optimal levels – some call it “complete personality”, others are calling it “auditing”, the 3rd talks of “superman of tomorrow” while ICF framework talks of “capacity vis-à-vis performance”

2. The next concern – “The article actively confuses broad concepts such as "culture" with religious promotional concepts used by Scientology, MGRM ("May God Rehabilitate Mankind") and Dayal Bagh” – please refer to the tables and images added in the article content now which clearly convey how “integrative rehabilitation sciences” not only encompass cultural and social anthropology, but also, areas of economics, political science, sociology, architecture (for built environments) and still more.

As regards religious promotional concepts – specifically from Scientology, this again has already been discussed on the article talkpage that the example has been cited only because of a similar concept already existing within it – and that at any time this example could be suitably modified by present / future users based on their sensibilities – but why I personally feel it necessary is because it demonstrates examples of interpretations and applications – by religious as well as non-religious and even corporate entities also – how much more inclusive and neutral a viewpoint could the article adopt? You have to see the respective websites to realise how scientific and intellectual are the activities being pursued by some of these agencies and their till-date achievements – sometimes even in collaboration with renowned educational and research institutions across the world

3. “the text appearing to be an original essay rather than an encyclopaedia entry and the weak relationship to the sources quoted” – I beg to differ because if you compare the first version of the article to the present one, you would yourself realise how many verbatim quotes have been added to it presently – simply to minimise the in-between linking texts which offcourse has to be compiled by someone like you and me to make the whole article readable and easily understandable. And even this linking text you would realise utilises much of the terms already in use in the cited examples publications / websites. Thus I fail to understand where, if at all any “originality” is left in the text and that how the relationships with the sources are not visible still. The range of sources from decades or even century old organisations to UNESCO-recognised body to a world body like WHO – all talking of the same human potential (or call it “human unity”) – I am sure the future generations would wish to know in times to come of the evolution of the applied examples for these otherwise generally theoretical concepts

4. The “Delete” argument put forth by another user – stressing on whether the same contains any experimental reasoning and/or quantifiable number, etc. – I wish to only state that both, the article’s verbatim quotes and the WHO website clearly state how this aspect of rehabilitation has been in existence for ages and how the same acquires utmost importance in present times – owing to even the economic and policy considerations of a state for extending / adopting such an integrative rehabilitation framework. Infact, if one were to visit the relevant WHO website pages, we would find that the work towards finalisation of various checklists, questionnaires for assessments alongwith other related administering guidelines including scoring under the framework are still in process of being shared in the public domain even as-on-date. And this is considering that the original ICF framework was ratified by all the 191 WHO member states in 2001 – and now in 2011 we have slowly but surely reached this stage – all I am trying to say is that everything takes time but it does not mean we do not make a start for this article

5. And finally the last point – “The article is an open-ended user essay based on an incoherent collection of sources” – I am sure I have by now conveyed amply clearly the coherence of the article topic vis-à-vis the cited sources and examples – while the article presently being “open-ended” is because I am still trying to justify its survival, despite me having already submitted to the administrator in the article talkpage that further search in fields of Rehabilitation Psychology and Rehabilitation Philosophy, besides the WHO ICF framework itself is already underway – and hence the article would be suitably updated not only by me but by other users as well over a period of time – as is the case with the entire WIKIPEDIA.

I hope the above points resolve this matter – and that the flag for deletion would be removed from the article page now. Please consider that even good governance talks of all-encompassing, holistic approach to address the needs of the states’s subjects – but then anything which is all encompassing or integrated / holistic in approach pertaining to humans cannot be labelled as “spiritual” – that is the reason I have been trying to make the distinction to the administrator that this article does not fall under the purview of “Spirituality”.

No doubt we have already gained a lot for the article content through the elaborate discussions undertaken till now at the article discussion page and this afd discussion – but I hope to keep gaining furthermore from your expertise and contributions towards this article – as you would have done for so many others in the past too.

Regards, Jn.mdel --Jn.mdel (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC) — Jn.mdel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:MADEUP. The references do not support the essay as a whole, or the use of the term "integrative rehabilitation". Searching the usual scientific databases, it is clear that while this term has been used once in a conference paper by a Lithuanian research group, it was not intended in the way used in this Wikipedia article. In any case, the term has not received any mainstream acceptance and is not notable. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 09:21, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment. Dear sirs / administrators, Integrative rehabilitation sciences is part of WHO’s ICF framework – better known as ICF in short.

If one were to search even now on just one single scientific database – like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed - with criteria in advanced search being set to search “ICF” in “Title” field – it yielded me 524 results of which except the few earliest articles which consider ICF as intravascular coagulation-fibrinolysis (ICF) syndrome, remaining all are pertaining to the “ICF” framework – but essentially what I am trying to impress upon is that ICF is a framework which is being adapted and adopted for usages in a wide variety of rehabilitation requirements – ranging from using ICF to describe functioning of patients with Parkinson’s disease (article’s PMID 21427589) to ICF for describing functioning of traumatized refugees (article’s PMID 21422601) to ICF for occupational therapy perspective in adult care (article’s PMID 21391774) and even vocational rehabilitation based on ICF (article’s PMID 21328061) – and similarly 500+ more articles.

Thus, this term’s “mainstream acceptance” is only limited by the fact that WHO has put into place this framework internationally only as recently as in 2001 – and for which work is still on, as mentioned in my earlier note above. However, the essence of this framework has always been in existence – I am sure no one disputes that.

What I am unable to understand is that why cannot we approach this article as we would for any other article – which hopes to build upon through community participation over a period of time – rather than hoping to achieve a finished article before the afd discussion ends – which is what I appear to be doing single-handedly through the more than elaborate notes already mentioned – both above as well as in the article talkpage.

I had infact earlier even thought of inviting users of cited examples as well as others to review and contribute / modify etc. to the article – but then realised that this might be misconstrued as “canvassing” to prevent deletion, and hence restrained myself – hoping that now the article having gone through a “proposed deletion”, followed by an “article for deletion” nomination and then again a “re-listing” – maybe it would now finally be retained as a normal article so that I could then invite the prospective community to participate – but then again this 2nd re-listing happens and now again I am trying to do fire-fighting job against another perspective.

I only hope reason is seen for retaining the article after reviewing the above notes and the article talkpage – so that the article further grows and reasoned fine-tuning is achieved over time from many more users, and not just me.

Regards, Jn.mdel --Jn.mdel (talk) 11:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If WHO's papers do not consistently use the term "Integrative Rehabilitation" then the sources do not verify that this is a term used in form defined by the article. As for International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, it already exists. PS, your keep opinion is only counted once, later comments are better titled as comment. Thanks Fæ (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay about a non-notable term. That's the bottom line. With apologies to the creator, who obviously has worked hard on it, this is an uninformative accumulation of social science gibberish: ...integrated rehabilitation or an all-encompassing approach to human development - in its varied forms and names has always existed within mankind throughout the ages in what we commonly know as “culture” – which gets established by customs, law, education or inclinations and stems from the essential moral principles which we all accept. Uhhh, what?!?! There are waves of similar prose, all of which explains nothing to this layman. What is it we are talking about with this piece? I am baffled. EVEN IF third-party sources are somehow provided establishing the notability of the concept, there needs to be a savage machete wielded against this piece, as it is not written in a coherent manner. Carrite (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sirs, I apologise for making the 2nd “keep” mention – I too was not sure of that. However, I still wish to submit that please do not let the limitations of my writing style be one of the reasons for this article’s deletion – I greatly welcome and anticipate that some of the reviewers / editors / administrators could help me with the article by making edit contributions to improvise it.

Yes, ICF refers to “International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health”, however, that is the overall framework, whereas this article wants to put forth the non-clinical or non-medical applications – on lines of the “Integrative rehabilitation sciences” component of this overall framework (which has broadly 5 components in all – as also mentioned in the cited papers).

Lastly, the continuity in all the till-date cited examples has been tried to be maintained because one organization, MGRM is talking of a “complete personality”, while dayalbagh educational trust talks of a “complete man”, still further the quotes added in the article from rehabilitation literature talk of a “total man” whereas auroville is talking of “human unity” and “Supermind” or “Supramental” and lastly, scientology talks of “immortal spiritual being”.

I hope you all take a balanced final decision.

Regards, Jn.mdel --Jn.mdel (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC) — Jn.mdel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment regarding long winded rebuttals see WP:BLUDGEON. LibStar (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 11 gnews hits says it all [1]. not a widely reported concept. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2011 (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.