Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INTP


 * 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 Speedy Keep - bad faith nomination. ++Lar: t/c 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

MBTI Type Articles


Okay. It is time for the silliness to end. I have edited under an IP for a while, and under a UN for a few days. It has already slapped me in the face how unencyclopedic and petty these MBTI articles have become. Most of them are full of partial copyright violations from type sites and the listcruft of 'xxxx people in history' that accumulates is unbelievable and often unsourced. Redirect all to the main MBTI page. Wikipedia is not psychological counselling, nor is it a place for pseudoscience. Polmorry (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Regardless of what you think the MBTI is one of the most used personality assessment tools in HR within the commercial and public sectors, and its components are notable enough to have books published on.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 14:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The articles don't even have a concise, contiguous format across all of the types! It would require a massive effort to clean them all up. A small section on each on the main MBTI page will suffice. Polmorry (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And also, you have an MBTI box on your userpage, which means that your comment smacks of WP:ILIKEIT. Polmorry (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, if I didn't like it I wouldn't contribute anything to Wikipedia, which is the case for 'all'' Wikipedia editors...--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 22:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I observe that while it is correct that a degree of homogeneity would be nice across the types, with the MBTI article already at 40kb, merger of all 16 types into it is likely to push it to 100kb necessitating a split!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Invalidating people's comments because of what's on their userpage smacks of Ad hominem. Erik (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - just looking through the articles, if they are kept they require massive cleanup by someone with access to the appropriate sources, there are pages and pages worth of original research. Guest9999 (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These deletions are opposed (keep) due to the articles being representative of reference to specific types in the much used HR personality assessment tool (MBTI) in commercial and public application. They are reference article to specific types as developed from theories by Carl Jung. "Madness" maybe all of the proposer's!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 14:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I moved your comment here. I believe you mean to !vote "keep". Katr67 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

206.248.128.5 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Not hopeless. Passes WP:NOTE: the basic info is cited using reliable sources, though the uncited original research and/or copyright violations certainly need to be removed. Needing clean up is not a criterion for Afd, nor is "pseudoscience". And to the nom, having an MBTI box on one's page doesn't automatically indicate that someone commenting here is using WP:ILIKEIT as an argument. Only the comments on this page should be taken into account. Katr67 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; cleanup, yes, but they are very well known hence notable and verifiable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, all. I came here through ENTP and it looks like a perfectly fine article and comparable to other MBTI-related material I've read over the years.  Also, the people in history are not "listcruft"; many articles written on MBTI types include similar lists for descriptive purposes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But they should cited, either to the testing occasion or more likely the person whose opinion it is that they fit. More than a few people based on opinion alone isn't really necessary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On the ENTP page, they are. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but remove all of the lists of famous people, which are not and never will be sourced properly (the ENTP page links to a page about ENTP where the author speculates on every single person listed being an ENTP). It grossly violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. JuJube (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment; doesn't violate WP:OR at all. It would be much more accurate if the article stated them as opinions not fact, and that could be argued as a violation of WP:NPOV, but I don't think having a few examples around hurts.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It completely violates WP:RS, at the very least. Do you see the website doing the analysis? This is not someplace we should be citing here. Who knows, maybe someone scholarly somewhere makes these speculations, but I'm skeptical we'll find anyone (especially considering that MBTI isn't well-respected generally)... Mangostar (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the articles are pretty bad and need to be cleaned up (and I hate the lists of famous people), but the topics are notable and reliable sources exist. Pseudoscience or not, MBTI is used throughout the world. That a "massive effort" is needed to clean them up is not a reason for deletion. Somno (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep There is plenty of research on the validity of the MBTI, and while there is speculation on who falls into each individual type that may be original research at best and silliness at worst, the main parts of the articles are not. The MBTI itself is highly notable, and so are the individual types. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup is not grounds for deletion. The MBTI is notable. MrPrada (talk) 07:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree that it's pseudoscientific nonsense, but it's notable pseudoscientific nonsense.  The articles all need a lot of cleanup, but as others have noted, that's no reason for deletion. Klausness (talk) 10:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I feel the article still provides a reasonable amount of value.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.50.76.130 (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As far as the lists of famous people go, most books about the MBTI written for the popular or business press have similar lists. I'd suggest walking into any public library if there's a question about published sources.  Also the whole nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And they are all just as speculative. What's your point? JuJube (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because then it's speculation from a reliable source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Most definitely notable, whether or not they are valid.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. User:Pedant (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The only things that need to be changed are the "Myers-Briggs Characters" sections, which need to be trimmed, and the "Notable (Personality Type)s" should be deleted. Otherwise, the articles should stay. -Jayinhar (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not psuedoscience and it is notable.  And since they are individual pages each attracting their own interested individuals, it does not take a "massive effort" to clean them up, merely the same collective effort which goes into the rest of Wikipedia.  --Janus Shadowsong  |  contribs  21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Jeffrey.Rodriguez (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but fix —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.171.76.199 (talk) 04:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I found them useful. If you need to fix them for some reason then do that, but don't take out detail: it's ok if articles are long; that's just more info 206.248.128.5 (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep the originator clearly and obviously has an axe to grind. frankly, I don't care if he feels these tests are pseudoscience.  They are used (as has been mentioned before) by Hr departments around the country.  there are more than a dozen books written about them, more than a hundred newspaper/magazine articles and plenty of websites.  there is a wikipedia page on Phrenology, another clear pseudoscience.  There may be some rationale for cleaning up these articles but there is little to now rationale for deleting them en masse.Protonk (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and require references for notable persons of each type. This is not original research. MoodyGroove (talk) 14:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)MoodyGroove
 * Keep, certainly notable, and a list of examples (if properly sourced) will help understanding what type of people we're speaking about. Erik (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what all these acronyms mean, but note that the nominator has been blocked indefinitely. Nyttend (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2008 (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.