Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual behaviour in organisations

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. There's consensus that this does not belong in main space. Anybody who's interested in working on it can request a move to draft space at WP:UND. Sandstein 08:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Individual behaviour in organisations

[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)

Original research, largely unsourced. The glowing paragraph on the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, (which is pseudoscience) shows that this article is unapologetic opinion, not a summary of what independent, reliable sources have to say about the subject. Vexations (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don’t understand why this article still has an AfC tag on it. Has it passed AfC or has the creator sidestepped the AfC process? It’s really not suitable for Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Mccapra, The creator moved it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=move&user=&page=Draft:Individual_behaviour_in_organisations&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= Vexations (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An actual subject is meso organizational behaviour, a subfield of organizational behaviour. Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In the usual micro/meso/macro terminology, individual behaviour is the micro level. Meso is an intermediate level such as the study of interactions between different layers of a hierarchy. See Micro, Macro, and Meso Theories. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You aren't reading what I wrote, which states what an actual subject is. You aren't reading the original author's user page, which is quite important to read here, not least when it comes to the topic of actual subjects that are missing. And perhaps more importantly you aren't reading Smith, Schneider & Dickson 2005. ☺ Such a definite assertion of what meso is, based upon a single source, founders quite badly. Better people than us have done the research, and concluded that quite a lot of these single sources disagree with one another even as regards the basic idea. Ironically this demonstrates it to be an actual subject, studied by people, and with analyses of the literature in the field.
    Our review of the literature had led us to anticipate there to be no clear consensus regarding the definition of 'meso' or those characteristics that delineate meso research, and our informal survey did not disappoint us.
    ^{— Smith, D. Brent; Schneider, Benjamin; Dickson, Marcus W. (2005). "Meso‐organizational behavior: Comments on a third paradigm". In Clegg, Stewart R.; Hardy, Cynthia; Lawrence, Thomas B.; Nord, Walter R. (eds.). The SAGE Handbook of organizational studies. SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781848608030.n5. ISBN 9781446206898.}
    Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's claim that this is original research seems quite false. The level of citation seems quite reasonable and there are plenty more sources out there such as entire books on the subject – see The Psychology of Behaviour at Work: The Individual in the Organization, for example, which naturally includes sections on personality and psychometric testing. Relevant policies include WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Davidson, I said largely unsourced. To be a bit more accurate, over 75% of the article has no sources. But even claims that do have sources, such as "Each of the sixteen different personality types either have a positive or negative affect for patterns of behaviour amongst individuals" Samson (2018) are still hopelessly wrong. That isn't remotely what Samson said, who summarizes it himself as "The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) assessment measures a person's preference for introversion versus extroversion, sensation versus intuition, thinking versus feeling and judging versus perceiving". That is quite a bit more accurate, but unfortunately still doesn't point out that the MBTI is pseudoscientific nonsense. For me to call it OR was perhaps a mistake. As for the topic, the micro-level of organizational behavior is a notable topic. If you think the article can be fixed, please show how. The only option I see is a complete rewrite. I have considered merging with Organizational behavior, but I see nothing in this article that could improve the target of the merge. If you do, please identify what can be retained. Vexations (talk) 11:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Return to draft space This article is going to need a lot of work. The second sentence said "can lead to developing can lead to developing". [1] Some basic proofreading would be nice. The way the article is written though needs to be redone. Dream Focus 04:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, The creator, User:Maize en tars hasn't edited since 7 June 2019 [2]. They say they're a student in OLES2129, which appears to be this study unit. It's listed as facilitated by User: Fransplace on the outreach dashboard Fransplace can you suggest a way forward? thanks, Vexations (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very much a synthesized class essay, not an encyclopedia article on an established cohesive topic. Reywas92^Talk 22:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space: per Dream Focus, the article needs work, not deletion. After the article is sourced we can determine of it is original research. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft space please Vexations. Our course has finished though we are encouraging students to continue to work on improving pages and, in particular those they're watching and have contributed to. Fransplace 03:08, 20 June 2019 (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.