Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conceptualist

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 delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptualist[edit]

This article is given no context. If Conceptualist is a personality type, what typology is it a part of? Either there should be an article about the typology with the Conceptualist and Experimentalist types described in it (since they're stubs now anyway), or it should be deleted as non-notable. ParagonDoD (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or possibly transwiki to Wiktionary. Does show some good content. Littleteddy (roar!) 08:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very weak article, good neither as part of some experimentalist/conceptualist Psychology 101 contrast nor as providing context on wider use of conceptualist, e.g. in art. The Experimentalist article might also go? AllyD (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is going nowhere.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 10:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both terms worth brief discussion in David Galenson and Old Masters and Young Geniuses is probably WP:BK material where these new terms can be dealt with in detail. They are not widely accepted, though, in the way that other personality types are. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The article offers no reliable secondary sources, therefore it qualifies as a fringe theory. If this article is kept then Wikipedia would IMO be "the validating source for non-significant theories". ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.