Implications of INL on the accuracy and resolution of an ADC
Sort of ...  if you look further down the page in the linked article, you'll a good explanation of the gain and offset errors.  Particularly fig.5  So if you only have gain errors sometime the digital range is suppressed and in some cases the analog input range is suppressed.  The former case is explained by your formulae. The later not.  You need to account for gain differences.
That would be one way, however, if it's the analog that is suppressed AND you have sufficient noise in the sampled signal to hide your computational noise you could conceivably be able to post multiply to get your full 16 bit range (span) back.  Because of the noise present you won't have a full resolution ADC (ENOB - Effective Number of Bits).   If you don't have enough noise then you'll notice this fractional multiplication.  You don't mention your application but in images this wouldn't be acceptable.
It just means that the INL is low, it doesn't speak to having to truncate the length because that is limited by other factors like DNL.  What is does mean is that architecture (circuit technique) has promise for further extension to 17 bits.


Other factors do come into play in your decision.  Monotonicity is one.  A non-monotonic ADC will have high INL and NOT be correctable.

The article is good, but it does say some things that are applicable to certain architectures of ADC.  One statement is " a LOW INL means a low DNL" to paraphrase  the very first sentence in the INL section is not necessarily true in all cases.