- 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. A unanimous consensus to keep the article, at least among the human participants. Owen× ☎ 22:46, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Szondi test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I propose that the current version of the "Szondi test" article either be substantially revised or nominated for deletion on the following grounds:
1. Violation of Wikipedia’s "No Original Research" policy (WP:OR): The article draws a strong conclusion — that the Szondi test is discredited — based primarily on the 2006 Delphi poll by Norcross et al. This poll is an opinion-based survey, not empirical research. The article presents the poll's results as definitive, without critical context or attribution, which amounts to editorial synthesis — a form of original research prohibited on Wikipedia.
2. Lack of Reliable Secondary Sources (WP:RS): Beyond the Norcross poll, the article lacks citations to peer-reviewed sources that analyze the Szondi test in contemporary scientific or clinical contexts. It does not acknowledge recent or alternate views, particularly from psychoanalytic and projective traditions.
3. Ignoring Current Academic Discourse: A 2024 doctoral dissertation published via HAL – L’analyse projective dans le contexte clinique moderne (https://theses.hal.science/tel-04399147) – discusses projective methods including the Szondi test in a clinical and theoretical framework. This contradicts the portrayal of the test as entirely obsolete.
4. Over-reliance on a Single Source: The Norcross et al. (2006) study contains notable limitations. 36.6% of surveyed experts were unfamiliar with the Szondi Test. Moreover, the authors themselves state:
- “Professional consensus does not equal an epistemic warrant; even experts can be and have been wrong.”
In summary, the article reflects a narrow and unsupported interpretation of the Szondi Test's scientific status and fails to meet multiple core Wikipedia content policies.
Tatiana Zhdanova (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Please don't use AI to write comments on Wikipedia. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 March 22. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Strong keep. The fact that you appear to have used AI for this comment is also the reason that all of it is irrelevant to whether it should be deleted. The article's current content -- OR, lack of RS, ignoring current discourse, relying on a single source -- is completely irrelevant to deletion. All that matters is whether reliable sources exist. This discussion should be closed quickly as keep per the many reliable sources on the article and lack of a coherent reason for deletion based on policy. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Obvious keep. Nom fails to give a valid deletion criterion and the subject is obviously notable. First of all the sources already in the article establish notability. Secondly, there are literally hundreds of scholarly articles discussing the Szondi test. Here are just a few: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. If you're not happy with the current state of the article then edit it. Central and Adams (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
- That is very bad rôte advice to be giving in these particular circumstances. This editor has gone about things the very wrong way, but definitely needs other independent editors's help here with editing the article. You are pushing towards a highly predictable kerfuffle down the line, which we should be avoiding having. Thoughtlessly brushing this off with "Your problem; edit it." is not the way to go here, because we know exactly where that leads in these circumstances. It is also very much not either English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Foundation policy in these circumstances. Uncle G (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Tatiana Zhdanova per Uncle G, what you want here is cleanup tags, not AFD -- specifically Template:Original research, Template:Disputed, Template:Single source, and possibly Template:Reliable sources. The convention is to put them all in a Template:Multiple issues tag. After putting those on the article you can provide more details on the talk page, and then proceed to either (if nobody is there) make the changes you want, making sure to add new reliable citations that are better than the old ones, or (if somebody is there) discuss it with them.
- However, people don't want to delete the article because even if its worse than nothing now, it could be better, in which case the policy is to keep it. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you all for your feedback and guidance.
You're right — while I continue to believe the article needs substantial improvement, I now see that deletion was not the best path forward. I’ll follow your advice and shift toward cleanup tags and proposed edits based on more diverse and recent academic sources. I’ll also move this conversation to the article’s Talk page to build consensus.
Also, a brief note of apology: as a relatively new editor, I did rely in part on AI assistance when drafting the AfD rationale. It was never intended to bypass Wikipedia’s policies — just to help me communicate more clearly in a non-native language and unfamiliar format. I now understand this is discouraged and will proceed more carefully going forward.
Thanks again for helping me learn the process and engage constructively.
Tatiana Zhdanova (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
- Just so you know, if you're trying to make sure your communication is clear, one option that I occasionally see people do is to just write what they mean in English, and then in their native language; that way people can use Google Translate or similar to figure out what is meant if the English is unclear. So, that's also an option if you're interested. Mrfoogles (talk) 01:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
- It would be easier to believe this apology if you did not use AI to write it. -- asilvering (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2025 (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.