Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain types


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep.  MBisanz  talk 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Brain types

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The neutrality and factual accuracy have been questioned since March 2008. The notability has been questioned since May 2008. The article appears to be commercial self-promotion. No source other than that of the topic's author has been cited for validation. The theory is admittedly scientifically unproven. The American Psychological Association holds that it's "not valid and built for commercial purposes only." The only references I can find to the theory in a Google search (other than the Wikipedia article itself) appear to be websites associated with the theory's author. ThreeOfCups (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  Stubify and Keep. The article as it stands is obviously not acceptable; it is full of original research and gives undue weight to the advocates of brain typing. The only verifiable part of the current article is the last section, which is backed up by a scholarly source. A Google Scholar search for "brain typing" (in quotes) appears to turn up at least three distinct sources (including the one currently in the article), so there is probably enough for a stub. It should also be moved to "brain typing," in my opinion. I'll do this soon unless someone else wants to. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 06:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC), strike 07:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Article is much improved now. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 09:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There is some indication that the subject has achieved minor notability, or the APA wouldn't have bothered to say it's unfounded. However, the article as it exists right now does not seem to be NPOV (although it could be worse!) and needs cleanup and deletion of unverified claims. Anaxial (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. There should be sources for the sports part of the article; with those and the APA criticism, it should meet GNG.  Also, could this be merged to the main article on MBTI? Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It appears there is disagreement as to whether it meets GNG, even with recent revisions.  I am really thinking I should just remove it altogether now.  I didn't want to create a conflicting mess with this, and it appears it still is.  Khendra1984 (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. OK, I can't delete my own article since I am not an admin.  If there is an admin around, feel free to delete the article since it isn't notable and the system is being challenged as unethical by field experts.  I'll stay away from Wikipedia henceforth and not cause any more egregious trouble.  Thanks and have a good one.  Khendra1984 (talk) 04:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment @Khendra: Come on, there's no call for that. @ThreeOfCups: It seems clear that you don't like this article (or perhaps the subject of the article). But does that really mean that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines? We have articles on all sorts of pseudoscientific topics, which are fully notable. Could you elaborate on why you feel this article doesn't meet the notability guideline, now that some additional sources have been provided? --N Shar (talk · contribs) 07:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The MBTI article is already pretty large, and I'm concerned that merging the content from this article would confuse the already delicate issue of whether MBTI is scientific or not. I think it would probably be better to keep them separate. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 23:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I strongly oppose merging it with MBTI. It borrows from the theories of Isabel Myers, but it has no connection to her or to the MBTI itself. The MBTI has an enormous body of research behind it, while the Brain Types theory appears to have none. As far as I can tell, it's just the postulation of some marketing guy with no scientific credentials whatsoever. ThreeOfCups (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Any merge would have do be written so as not to imply any endorsement by the publishers of the MBTI. But other than those concerns, there's no reason why this article, after being condensed to a couple of paragraphs, can't be merged.  Furthermore, it's the more likely search term.  If I'd heard on a sportscast something about M-B types being connected with physical coordination, I'd be curious but I'd search for MBTI, not "brain types". Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This theory is a corruption of the MBTI, violating its principles of ethical use. The MBTI measures cognitive function - how people prefer to use their minds - and is unrelated to physical coordination, etc. The MBTI cannot be used to predict behavior, ability, or likelihood of success. If the Brain Types article were to be merged, I think it should be merged with Sport psychology, which is currently a stub. It's a far better fit. ThreeOfCups (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I am the one who started this article awhile back. I added it since I remember seeing this stuff on ESPN's "Outside the Lines" program; the theories sounded interesting, though obviously not proven, and I clearly mention they haven't been proven at the introduction's final paragraph in this article.  I am not "self-promoting" brain types since I have no affiliation, familial or professional, with the Niednagels; I am just a 24-year old sports fan who also was interested in the MBTI when I learned about their work on the ESPN show.  Again, it's an interesting but unproven concept; I thought I was pretty fair in trying to be neutral as possible and allowing additions of the Sandbek article as an opposing view.  The sources I gave, Niednagel's book and web site, have a list of all his claims - again, _claims_, and I added all that information so people have some idea of what brain types are about.  This article wouldn't be very informative if it didn't present claims.  So, I don't see why people here are refusing to acknowledge this article as neutral.  Please name specifics where I somehow say this is factual and not just a theory. --Khendra1984 (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the article fully again, I suppose one thing that could be added to make the article more balanced (since it seems to be annoying people so much) are some of the sports predictions which _haven't_ been successful for brain types. Sure, I mentioned the Leaf and Manning once since it's the most famous, but that's admittedly a positive example.  I could also add the more negative one about unsuccessful NBA basketball player Brian Scalabrine being touted since he was said to have "Michael Jordan's brain type," if you guys would like that.  I think I still have the source. --Khendra1984 (talk) 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely that source would be appreciated (in addition to any others you might have, of course). My complaints on POV issues don't stem from the writing per se (I think you did a good job writing in a neutral voice), but from the weight given to the advocates of brain typing as opposed to the detractors. The recommended reading on this point is WP:DUE. In any case, that example would be a great improvement to the article; in fact, go ahead and edit it in if you want. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 09:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I should also note that there's currently an arbitration case regarding issues of undue weight and sourcing in "fringe science" topics in general. This may explain some of the rather touchy behavior of some commentors (including myself) in this AfD. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 09:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, on further inspection, I've decided that the most objectionable section (to me, at least) is the section called "Brain Types and Mental Skills." I think I will edit that out. Then we'll work on improving the article, and I think it will look a lot better to everyone. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 09:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick responses. I'll look for the Scalabrine reference to make it more neutral.  I am also fine with the mental skill section being removed - if anyone is more interested about brain type claims, they can go to the web site and see those mental skill claims there anyway, so it's a bit redundant. --Khendra1984 (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should take this discussion to the article's talk page at this point, personally. I've got to sleep, though, so I won't be able to do much more right now. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 09:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.