Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jungian cognitive functions

Jungian cognitive functions

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This article has consistently violated the standards of NOR, and NFRINGE since it was created. A talk page discussion about its basic problems in 2022 brought no progress, and after three years, nothing has changed. As the recent proposal for deletion was contested, I am starting this discussion.

1. The opening sentence reads: "Psychological functions, as described by Carl Jung in his book Psychological Types...". In fact, a significant part of this article is about interpretations of MBTI adherents, and people deeply influenced by the MBTI. This is an entirely arbitrary selection. For example, we have an article on Socionics, which is excluded here. This is unresolved because there is no independent, reliable, and comprehensive treatment of the idea this article is trying to describe. Therefore, it is original research.

2. The personality psychology field widely dismisses Jung's theory of psychological functions, and any concurrent developments, such as type dynamics in MBTI, or socionics. It is definitely a fringe theory. There seems to be no secondary, independent literature on the article's topic in general. I am not aware of it, and it seems that in the past 20 years, it has never been found. Therefore, this fringe topic within an already fringe topic lacks notability.

What can be salvaged should be merged to Psychological Types. That is the original work of the book, which is found in both articles. There are no foreseeable difficulties for that partial merge. I proposed a merge in 2022, but the discussion ended with no consensus. As for the rest of its content, the only solution seems to be deletion. It appears that maintaining this article will only cause more readers to be mislead, and potentially serve as a platform for advertising more 'models' which are included only on the basis of their hobbyist popularity. Dege31 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychiatry and Psychology. Dege31 (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The current sources are very poor. Most are primary sources. The meat of the article is already better summarized at Personality type#Carl Jung, Psychological Types, and elsewhere. Right now this article looks like an excuse to promote niche sub-theories. If this article survives, these sections and absurdly long charts should be axed for having poor sources.

Daryl Sharp's works were published by Inner City Press, which was started by Sharp and listed him as general editor and publisher until his death, after which it is mostly dormant. This doesn't appear to have had outside editorial oversight or other indications of being an WP:RS
The Naomi Quenk source is wasted here.
The only source for the John Beebe section doesn't appear useful here and does nothing to demonstrate significance.
Who is Linda Berens? Who is Lenore Thomson? If these are significant, reliable, independent sources should have been found long ago.

Grayfell (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]