Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Socionics

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ClovisPt (talk | contribs) at 16:01, 27 June 2009 (delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:01, 27 June 2009 by ClovisPt (talk | contribs) (delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Socionics

No evidence of real notability has been presented after several requests. This appears to be a Eastern European fringe psychological movement of contested origin, and all material presented is from proponents. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Also nominating following derivative articles:

The following already have nominations:

Socionics (esoterism) (discussion) is a content fork.

Information metabolism (discussion) is a WP:COATRACK for socionics.

The latter two should be deleted regardless of the outcome of this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 03:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep parent article, merge rest A few mentions on Google. May be notable enough for its own article, however all the "logical sensory extrovert" things should be merged into the parent article. Also, for the record, I think this is a VERY weak keep. Aditya _ß 06:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

~~Keep parent article, merge most of the rest~~ Weak keep parent article, merge rest: External sources found using google scholar search, however, the field is not notable enough to merit the host of articles currently existing. Contrast with Ebonics, which has only one article, but has 4,240 google scholar hits, vs 372 for socionics. LK (talk) 09:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked out the Google scholar references. They are about something completely different, an AI notion related to petri nets. After three pages of results I found only one that might have something to do with personality typing. Mangoe (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Mangoe is right, most of those links are about something else altogether. I'm changing my vote to weak keep. Additionally, a new page should probably be created for this other type of socionics, and a disambiguation page made. LK (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep For reasons that should be obvious. Stipulation: if you delete socionics, you must delete MBTI as well because they are descriptions of the same phenomena, only with different models. Even if you keep both of them, you still cannot delete the socionics type article without deleting the MBTI type articles as well. It's only fair. Tcaudilllg (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- read Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists and look at the sources on the MBTI article. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

read Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules. This is ethnocentrism at its worst. See the references in the socionics article. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many theories that treat the same phenomena, some are notable others are not. It's unreasonable to argue that because Misplaced Pages has a page on using chemotherapy to treat cancer, all other proposed treatments for cancer are automatically notable as well. LK (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

When someone cites 1 policy, you can't automatically cite WP:IAR and conveniently ignore the cited policy. You do not understand IAR. That's not our fault. Aditya _ß 14:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We'll see what happens. I'm interested in seeing how this turns out. It'll be instructive. I'm especially concerned with understanding why you are so determined to deny "the MBTI of the East" legitimacy. They don't use MBTI in Russia; they use Socionics. Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that backs up that statement? A source in Russian would be fine. That would go a long way towards showing notability. LK (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Delete all per nom. WP:IAR never impresses me, especially when it is being applied to something that doesn't improve WP. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete - per nominator's arguments. ClovisPt (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: