Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Socionics: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:06, 28 June 2009 editTcaudilllg (talk \| contribs)1,051 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:11, 28 June 2009 edit undoTcaudilllg (talk \| contribs)1,051 edits →Socionics Next edit →
Line 66:		Line 66:

	::::::::These are both examples of the sourcing problems these articles have. Examination of the URLs for the cited pages shows that they come from socionics proponents; they are '''not''' third-party references and are not sufficient to indicate notability. ] (]) 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)		::::::::These are both examples of the sourcing problems these articles have. Examination of the URLs for the cited pages shows that they come from socionics proponents; they are '''not''' third-party references and are not sufficient to indicate notability. ] (]) 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

			:::::::::You don't get it, do you? People just say "you can't prove it because there is no conclusive substantiation via cognitive experiments" and that's it. No one in their right mind disagrees with socionics unless they haven't studied the material. You'd better watch out, I might just type you and watch you explode.... ;) ] (]) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

	*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)</small>		*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. <!--Template:Delsort--></small> <small>-- ] (]) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)</small>

Revision as of 01:11, 28 June 2009

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)

Try "Соционика". It has 491 Google Scholar hits. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:11, 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)

Yes but, can you really say that the other treatments are better than chemo? Socionics is a much, much better model than the MBTI. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:07, 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)

The discussion over socionics' origin is not in doubt: Aushra Augusta created it. What is contested is how she created it, which if you think about it, shows just how different a socionics-based point of view is from a typically Western point of view. In Western-oriented sciences, when someone presents a new thesis, people rarely even ask how he came about it or how it was inspired. Reuben McNew, who has a degree in theology, is merely suggesting that Ashura Augusta created socionics as an alternative to traditional mysticism. People don't have to look to mysticism as a source of self-knowledge, because now they have socionics and with it, a realist framework that unites the empirical and the esoteric in one whole.

Socionics is really the great undiscovered science of the modern East. Why it has not been embraced and expanded upon by Western researchers is beyond me; but again, culture clash. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:07, 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)

The sources are in the article. Just look them up and away you go.

Here's a good one. Apparently a report on socionics was issued before the Russian Duma recently.

Another: http://74.125.95.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http://socionics.ru/&prev=_t&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhh5SgOkm_FTbJx-eAsOWrjDU9E6pQ Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

These are both examples of the sourcing problems these articles have. Examination of the URLs for the cited pages shows that they come from socionics proponents; they are not third-party references and are not sufficient to indicate notability. Mangoe (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? People just say "you can't prove it because there is no conclusive substantiation via cognitive experiments" and that's it. No one in their right mind disagrees with socionics unless they haven't studied the material. You'd better watch out, I might just type you and watch you explode.... ;) Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:11, 28 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)

Delete all or Merge all into Socionics, where the article wouldn't be a redirect but rather one covering all the information discussed in these many articles. The reason I offer two options rather than one is because I'm doubting whether this really is or isn't a notable topic. The sources are there, and they do seem to be somewhat reliable; however, I'm not totally convinced... --Slartibartfast1992 21:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Which are more notable: Sonic the Hedgehog characters, or socionics? Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, anybody? (in any case, I might just say Sonic the Hedgehog characters). --Slartibartfast1992 23:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You guys are hopeless. I had hoped to actually get the attention of people who would be interested in socionics if they knew about it, but that's clearly not going to happen. So, you'd might as well just close the debate. The conclusion was KEEP, and if you argue with it, I'll get the communitarians on your asses. They apparently haven't noticed that you're doing this yet, but when they do you'll see the ideology that really runs Misplaced Pages. (hint: it's not ethnocentrism) Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the "socionics (esotericism)" article (originally named "socionics (metaphysics)") as a show of openness and fairness to metaphysicians. There really is a slight emphasis in metaphysics in socionics because it offers the concept of duality, meaning that for example, where there is space (processed by the introverted thinking function in conjunction with the extroverted sensing function) there is also a signal. (processed by extroverted feeling with introverted intuition) The CMBR reading recently proved this without a doubt: at every point in the universe there is some kind of background radiation. The relationship between signal and space is light. You can take it a step farther: warp the space, and you warp the signal vis a vis relativity. So you see, the postulate socionics makes that there is an a priori reality independent of human experience is valid, and the socionics model is full enough to categorize all the relationships between reality in a coherent dialectic. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand what Misplaced Pages is about. It was not created to advertise novel theories. Mangoe (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Says you. And who else? Will you stand against progress? Do you think there is an authority that decides which justified progressive movements die and which thrive? Pfft, senseless bickering... you are not editing in good faith. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: