Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of Temperament Questionnaire

Structure of Temperament Questionnaire

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a very long article on a very specific topic, written entirely from primary sources, almost all of which are by one or both of the originators of the questionnaire, one of whom actually wrote this article. Another co-author has edited it. Virtually no edits of any substance have been by anybody without a close connection to the subject. What's missing is any independent evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 06:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no longer that the other articles on psychological tests. The "deletion" tag is therefore not justified, and the STQ page has significantly less grounds for being deleted, in comparison to the pages listed in my other comment. Please review the page again and, please, remove the "deletion" tag. I understand that your position of admin is often stressful, and it is easy to overlook the difference between an informative page and self-advertising. This page is just an information about most distributed test (among psychologists) in Russia that was adapted in Canada, USA and Australia in 1980-90s. However, this test is a professional test, so only professional psychologists know about it, so it is useful for general public to be aware of it. Hopefully it will help to clear the air.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a case of vandalism that should be reported

The user JzG called "Guy" (Guy) continues deleting the reference to American Journal of Psychology and now launched a discussion for a deletion of the page implying that the neutrality rule was violated. We suggest reading the material first: the authors of the STQ are Rusalov (mainly) and Trofimova (derivative), but none of them are main contributors. Yet, the page on this matter should be submitted by someone who knows the material. This is encyclopedia after all. The user Guy makes cuts and changes without justifying them or commenting anything in this talk page. I am going to revert changes (again!) - if you decide to have cuts please justify your actions. I understand that you want to improve the quality of the Wiki, so I suggest the same quality control over other Wikipedia pages related to psychological tests (much less verified by neurophysiological theories than the STQ). Here is the list for such important checking: Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, Revised NEO Personality Inventory,16PF Questionnaire,Self-Directed Search, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,Synthetic Aperture Personality Assessment,Personality Assessment Inventory,Temperament and Character Inventory,Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire, Karolinska Scales of Personality, and other pages on psychological tests. I also suggest to ask the authors of the page Temperament test to rename it as that page is about testing dogs, but the title can be used for tests of human temperaments. Sulisw (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted..[reply]

Factually incorrect on several levels, but who is "we"? You are a co-author on some of the papers, do you mean you and user:Iratrofimov? Guy (Help!) 19:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What part is factually incorrect? "We" refers to scientists working in this field, who advise to admins of Wikipedia on something that they are not trained in. Problem is that sometimes admins take sides too, promoting one theory and suppressing an exposure of others. I hope we (Wikipedia contributors and admins) can keep sociology of science aside when building this public encyclopedia. BTW, we, scientists, have to discuss if the Frontiers, a series of scientific journals, are sufficiently established journals to be cited in the Wikipedia. After all, they are indexed in all scientific catalogues, and prominent scientists publish in this series, but Guy deletes references to it as "predatory online journals". In this case the following pages should be deleted as well: Frontiers in Psychology, Frontiers in Zoology, Frontiers in Biology, Frontiers in Energy, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Frontiers in Endocrinology, Frontiers in Neuroscience, Frontiers in Information Technology & Electronic Engineering. I suggest just let the STQ page be, to remove the deletion tag, and appreciate the work of both, admins and contributors. I think none of us are getting paid for it, so we all do an important work with the best intentions, and we all want the same - to spread useful and often not known knowledge to people who need it. Sulisw (talk) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. This stinks like a WP:FRINGE theory, but the publication list does not look completely bollocks either. Will give a chance before going delete.

Sulisw, if you want the article kept, could you point out a few (not more than 3) publications that qualify as reliable sources dealing with the subject in detail? Make sure to read the link before saying "scientific papers are reliable"; "reliable" has a specific meaning in Wikipedia.

I am asking you that because Wikipedia's standard of "notability" (again, this word has a specific meaning) require a few very good sources. It is very easy to have tons of poor sources, and it actually is a a common practice of proponents of unnotable theories to flood the "references" section in the hope none looks too closely.

Also, your latest posts are probably counterproductive. We are not discussing all personality tests', or scientific papers' pages. Wikipedia's objective is not to spread useful and often not known knowledge to people who need it; actually, it specifically is about well-known knowledge (in a broad sense), not cutting-edge research. Please keep your posts concise (else others will not read them). I also advise to read WP:COI (yes, even if you are not directly paid to edit Wikipedia).

Finally, I suggest you withdraw the "vandalism" accusation, which is simultaneously wrong (here is what vandalism means), laughable, and potentially grounds for blocking. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond to the user Tigraan who reacts as an offended user Guy:

Re: "could you point out a few (not more than 3) publications that qualify as reliable sources" - the body of the article lists references ##3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14 published in peer-review English-language journals plus at least 36 additional references to also English peer-review journals, plus 2 Manuals of the STQ. In case you don't know, Manuals are the description of technical procedures executed to make a test valid and reliable. Manuals are never published in peer review settings - this is just a format of the psychometric industry, however papers supporting these manuals are peer reviewed. In any case, in my humble opinion, N of sources here already exceeds 3.
Re: "notability" - comes from the references cited. No need to be mentoring here. The page is not citing Russian-language sources, and I personally couldn't even read it, but from my communication with Russian psychologists, the STQ is known to every psychologist in Russia. The N of English-language citations show that it was noted here as well.
Re: "wikipedia is not to spread the knowledge" - we have to bring it to the attention of the owners of the Wikipedia, and review if the definition of encyclopedia applies to wiki in this case. If the owners agree with Tigraan's position, then wiki will risk to be just another tabloid source, recycling most known and flashy (noticed) news but not informing people about something that was discovered earlier. Using "notability over value" criteria wiki will end up having a number of cites related to production of, for example, Star Wars and none related to physical concepts helping to build actual space ships and to calculate turbulence in passing through Mars' atmosphere. Most of mathematical concepts are not known to 99.999% of people, and not known to 70% of mathematicians - simply because a single person can't learn everything right away, even when it comes to his or her profession. Yet, wiki's owners consider the pages related to these concepts useful. Notability is therefore not a priority, and shouldn't overshadow the value of knowledge. We have many very specialized areas or knowledge in which only experts know the terminology. Common people need to have an access to this knowledge - and this is why encyclopedias were invented.
the comment comparing the STQ page to the other tests' page is relevant here, as equal standards should be applied to similar pages. Otherwise there are reason to suspect reviewer's bias.
I also wonder how the expressions "stinks" and "bollocks" are compatible with authorization of this page for deletion.

I therefore call for authorized parties to review the "marked for deletion" status of this page and to return this page to a functional status.Sulisw (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no idea at all how Wikipedia works, whihc is not a surprise as you're mainly here to promote your own work. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]