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 16:58, 28 June 2009 editNiffweed17 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users2,511 edits →Socionics ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:27, 28 June 2009 edit undoDGG (talk \| contribs)316,874 edits →Socionics Next edit →
Line 116:		Line 116:

	additionally, '''strong keep''' on the information metabolism article, which is actually a well-explained theory in its own right unrelated to socionics. ] (]) 01:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)		additionally, '''strong keep''' on the information metabolism article, which is actually a well-explained theory in its own right unrelated to socionics. ] (]) 01:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

			*'''Strong Keep for socionics''' and of course consider whether to combine the others into it. This is not fringe, but a serious psychological approach. It's not the sort of approach i personally think very productive, but that isn't the standard. Much more important in Europe than the US, and a major branch of the Jungian tradition. There are sources enough: there are actually 151 books in google books for "socionics". That's a major amount of literature. I do not see in the least why it is necessary to invoke IAR. The main term is a subject of academic and popular study. Even the others can be sourced to respectable sources. They meet our standard criteria. The quarreling over the various schools of the subject above should be disregarded. It may be necessary for some of us not personally involved with the movement to learn about it in order to watch the article. This being a predominately European topic, the other articles should be compared: the one in the frWP is short and clear, and we could do worse for our article than have a translation of it. The German one is similar to ours, the Russian one seems a considerably expanded version of ours. Translating section of it in Google Translate--rather than attempting to read a long technical article in a language Ii can barely read at all--the explanations given there would add a considerable amount to the diagrams in our article, which are unfortunately not that clear unless you already know the terminology. I have another suggestion if any other admin would like to take me up on it: restart this AfD on socionics only, after a warning to some of the participants in this discussion. ''']''' (]) 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:27, 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)

Sonic the Hedgehog characters get my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:39, 28 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)

I'll be the who else on that one, plus Wiki policy (I guess the 'advertising novel ideas' bit applies to WP:SOAP). Now, I have to say I disagree with you on many points, Tcaud. First off, you called me an ethnocentrist. Now, this revelation came rather as a shock to me; I had often viewed myself as more of a postmodern. In fact, I had given the option of merge as part of my opinion about what should be done with these articles, on the off chance that I might have been wrong in suggesting a delete. Frankly, I don't know much about the notability of socionics; that being the reason why I gave two options.

You seem to be taking it the other way, however; I have doubts that these articles should be left alone, so you very naturally try to convince me. This is sometimes referred to as badgering, and I don't like it. Furthermore, you achieve nothing by trying to convince me to change my opinion, as I am a very arrogant and stubborn person. Of course, being arrogant and stubborn would be unbecoming of a postmodern, but since you've discovered I'm an ethnocentrist, I can now exhibit my arrogance freely. Even if my mind were as malleable as putty, though, you would be achieving nothing; we have discussions to build concensus, not as a vote (see WP:VOTE). It is also taken to be very against good faith to badger fellow editors in this way.

My final point is in that you, in a previous paragraph, somehow related socionics to general relativity. I am ashamed to even think of the possibility of comparing the great work of Albert Einstein to a social theory, the notability of which we're not even sure about.

Regards after writing a couple paragraphs curiously written like a letter, --Slartibartfast1992 07:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Bring on the communitarians!

Rick DeLong knows information metabolism better than anyone else in the west. See his page: http://www.socionics.us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 10:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Words like yours, Slartibartfast, suggest to me that if you had lived when Einstein did, you would have been a naysayer, not a supporter. Tcaudilllg (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

weak keep, merge, and complete overhaul most of the type-specific pages were created by me, mostly as an attempt to differentiate them from the MBTI articles like ENTP etc, which had separate sections for socionics, keirsey, and MBTI types. i would grant that most of them are not well enough sourced to merit their own pages, but they should not be integrated with pages on MBTI types, which represent something completely different. getting rid of them and integrating more functionally related information in the main page would probably be appropriate. on the issue of verifiable sources, i believe that socionics is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in wikipedia, based on reference materials in russian, which probably wouldn't show up obviously on a google scholar search. i have stayed away from trying to really use them because i don't speak russian and am really not the person who should be making these attributions. any attempt to search for sources in english only will fail. unfortunately, tcaudilllg and rmcnew have been fighting over the page recently and have included a bunch of execrable sources, and i don't know if the original ones that were here at some point are still here. neither tcaud nor mcnew are neutral parties and both seem to be advocating their own brand of socionics. i have not enough interest or energy to devote to fighting them over the state of the page, and nobody else in the community of people who talk about socionics seems to wish to deal with them either. neither of their contributions are generally verifiable, and they should be gotten rid of. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

McNew isn't going to give up, and he's probably going to be back with friends. But I'm looking at your talk history Mango, and I'm seeing a great wellspring of trouble for you. I'm betting their opinions would roughly coincide with mine on this.

Niffweed, you are speaking too soon. All I have done is included notes about model B and model T, both of which we have reliable sources for. I also created the mysticism article to give McNew, who is a professional theologian, space to discuss the esoteric socionics movement. (which as you know, has been considered in peer-reviewed journal articles over the years.) That you let McNew twist things out of proportion is your error, not mine.

But I want to say this right now: when some guy on Misplaced Pages starts getting the notion that he is the final arbiter of an entire institution's qualifications, then he's definitely misread the fine print. When you've got people who have professional qualifications getting together to produce articles in a journal, then unless they can be decidedly proclaimed out of the mainstream by a pivotal experiment or thesis disproving their claim, then you can't say they are "fringe". That Psychology Today statement was a red herring: just because you start a magazine about something does not mean that that something is notable, and the converse is equally true.

Intellectual arrogance is unbecoming Misplaced Pages editors. Tcaudilllg (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

as usual, i have no idea what you're talking about or what the bases of your personal accusations towards me are, and i fail to what any of it has to do with the socionics article, or see how i can respond to them in a way at all constructive to this AfD. please try to attend to the matter at hand. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why did you think they were about you? I was talking about Mango. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

if your comments were directed at mangoe, then they probably should not have been placed under my comment and instead should have gone as an extended response to mangoe's comment. whatever; i thought your response was not very clear, but i see no reason to continue arguing about the matter. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

additionally, strong keep on the information metabolism article, which is actually a well-explained theory in its own right unrelated to socionics. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep for socionics and of course consider whether to combine the others into it. This is not fringe, but a serious psychological approach. It's not the sort of approach i personally think very productive, but that isn't the standard. Much more important in Europe than the US, and a major branch of the Jungian tradition. There are sources enough: there are actually 151 books in google books for "socionics". That's a major amount of literature. I do not see in the least why it is necessary to invoke IAR. The main term is a subject of academic and popular study. Even the others can be sourced to respectable sources. They meet our standard criteria. The quarreling over the various schools of the subject above should be disregarded. It may be necessary for some of us not personally involved with the movement to learn about it in order to watch the article. This being a predominately European topic, the other articles should be compared: the one in the frWP is short and clear, and we could do worse for our article than have a translation of it. The German one is similar to ours, the Russian one seems a considerably expanded version of ours. Translating section of it in Google Translate--rather than attempting to read a long technical article in a language Ii can barely read at all--the explanations given there would add a considerable amount to the diagrams in our article, which are unfortunately not that clear unless you already know the terminology. I have another suggestion if any other admin would like to take me up on it: restart this AfD on socionics only, after a warning to some of the participants in this discussion. DGG (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: