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 14:02, 27 June 2009 editMangoe (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users34,840 edits →Socionics: google scholar is returning hits on something else← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:02, 27 June 2009 edit undoTcaudilllg (talk \| contribs)1,051 edits →Socionics Next edit →
Line 40:		Line 40:
	*'''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. ] (]) 13:07, 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. ] (]) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
	** read ] and look at the sources on the MBTI article. ] (]) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)		** read ] and look at the sources on the MBTI article. ] (]) 13:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

			*** read ].

Revision as of 14:02, 27 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 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)

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.

Categories: