Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cookie cutter paradigm

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. Several policies were indirectly or directly cited in this discussion. The POV and OR issues appear to have been dealt with in a series of edits during this AfD, but the issue of notability persists and is a dominant policy within the discussion. The consensus here appears to be that the concept of the "Cookie cutter paradigm" as an entity in itself is not sufficiently notable for an article. With no suggested merge or redirect targets, deletion would be the outcome of this debate. More so than normal, however, I will be open to suggestions of userfying the material to be worked on, which can be reviewed prior to a possible return to the mainspace Fritzpoll (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cookie cutter paradigm

Non-notable axiom of ~~non-notable~~ questionably notable fringe theory. The relevant references are strictly single-author, un-peer-reviewed papers with no citations. Bm gub (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a "leftfield" theory to be sure, and its main protagonist is Ulrich Mohrhoff of Auroville. He's not a tenured professor at Caltech, nor has he ever played bongoes in a Brazilian samba. That said, this as deserving a theory as ever drew scorn on Wikipedia. We are not here to act as competent peer reviewers of such theories. The theory is genuine (as a theory) and is discussed seriously as such. Deleting anything that tries to mention quantum theory and the Vedas in the same breath solely because it does just that is sheer WP:IDONTLIKEIT Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Please note that I did not nominate Pondicherry interpretation for deletion; I nominated Cookie cutter paradigm, whose notability doesn't even extend to being mentioned on the Pondicherry page. One of Mohrhoff's references is a dead link, the other is his own zero-citations-in-five-years ArXiV upload. I understand and respect that fringe science gets a different WP:NN standard than mainstream science, but it does still get *some* standards. If you disagree please show where CCP is "discussed seriously" inside or outside academia. Bm gub (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have come across the phrase "cookie cutter" in this context once before, used by Stephen Pinker, The Harvard (and ex-MIT) Cognitive Scientist, in "How The Mind Works." He, of course, would not use advocate using pure intuition as the sole underpinning of a theory! In fact IIRC Pinker was talking about the limitations of the human brain.

The only reason I don't say "Delete" is because I don't know whether there is such a thing as the CCP in the "brain and mind" sciences, used in a negative sense (i.e Cookie Cutter Paradigm is erroneous, but we often subscribe to this predictable and explainable phenomenon) and if this article has just been hijacked by someone guilty of inside-out science/wishful thinking.

At the very least, the "Conflict with QT section" should be removed, and all the references to why CCP is right and mainstream theories wrong. That is, if CCP is a valid Psychology concept used in the negative sense.

@Andy Dingley - No, the problem is WP:Verifiability and WP:Original Research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Cookie Cutter" is moderately well-known in Pinker's use. If we were to (and we MUST NOT, to remain NPOV) critique the theory here itself, it might be to describe it as a wooly-minded pastiche of a recognisable "brand" term from cog-sci (or genetics, or Marxism) mixed in with a misunderstood irrelevance from theoretical physics and a smattering of of Om. But we wouldn't do that. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:Notability, of course. On WP:Verifiability: if it is from one both non-academic and non-notable, not peer-reviewed source, then the citation is useless. Outre philosophy never overrides mainstream science. Wikipedia should respect that. And there is nothing more mainstream than QT. Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did we stop worrying about sources and start worrying about how many times those sources are in turn cited? We shouldn't hold this article to a different and higher standard of proof than we demand of the others (and that includes the entire Pokemon namespace). Andy Dingley (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation-counting is totally standard in notability debates. Also, keep in mind that the ArXiV is not a journal; it's a repository to which you upload stuff. There's a minor threshold for getting generic upload permission, but once you have that, "publishing an article" on the ArXiV doesn't make it a WP:RS any more than "uploading it to your home page" does. Bm gub (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Andy made it clear to me why:

Andy, did I miss the news story where scientists admitted empirical science was wrong all along?

It's not so much a higher standard of proof, rather that the page makes anti-scientific claims as if they were fact, therefore it is obviously original research. Except, reliable sources would make it not original research, but then the sources would have to be peer-reviewed science (or philosophy, if I missed the news story about academic philosophy departments starting "the revolution to overturn science"). But the sources can't be peer reviewed science. So as long as this a NPOV article presented as fact, I can't see how there's an argument.

If you or anyone elses changes it to a NPOV article about a pseudoscience called the Cookie Cutter Paradigm, and reliable sources are added to show that it is indeed notable (the sources then become newspapers, news websites etc. I'm sure you understand), then the article would not be in violation of every policy in WP:CSP bar "Biographies of Living Persons". A reference to the wisdom of the gingerbread man, and the set would be complete.

My only reservation, and the only one I can see that is arguable, was if an originally NPOV article was vandalized. In which case it would need to be reverted to when it was about whatever Pinker et al mean by The Cookie Cutter Paradigm, if they indeed use the complete term notably. Or at all. Given you've confirmed that it is in fact a page about a genuine theory that someone believes in, Andy, then that possibility is ruled out. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pure "empirical science" has been taking a hammering since Newton replaced the "impetus" theories with a theory of acceleration, in a world where cannon balls still suffer air resistance. 8-)

This article isn't WP:OR (shouldn't be / doesn't need to be) because it instead describes a published theory from outside Wikipedia. The theory may be "original research", but that's not the same as WP:OR. The theory may be wrong, the theory may even be ridiculous, but if it has any traction in the world at all, then we should be prepared to talk about it. We have lots of content on Scientology, and long may it so continue. We should care here about notability according to WP:N and neutrality to WP:NPOV - no more than that.

I can see three reasons to delete this:

* Non-notability. Are there sufficient sources, filtering out self-publication, to demonstrate WP:N? This would be a good reason for deletion, if not met. As you rightly comment, there's not much that isn't self-published.

* Bad science. This is not a good reason to delete. It's just not our role to arbitrate on such things. Tag the article, add additional commentary (sourced, of course) and if necessary, make it clear that it's baloney -- but we still talk about it.

* Unfixable WP:POV issues. If it's beyond any possibility of getting a balanced article together rather than a re-hashed press release with no neutral comment, then we might be forced to delete it. I'd do this reluctantly, as an admission of failure, but I'd still do it. generally though, we ought to be able to fix that by editing, not by deletion.

As an aside, Pinker is no part of this other than an etymological footnote for other disciplines using the same term. For that matter I'd like to see a ref to the most salient comment of all, from the Alabama 3 and their song "Don't you go to Goa". 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 11:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - The point re Newton is handwaving. Science is still conducted upon the basis of agreement with empirical data.

The entire article is a notable case of WP:REDFLAG anyhow.

Yes, don't delete if an advocate of Keep is prepared to revise the article (and it is a notable theory)...

...But as it stands I'm not going to change my mind.

Quite happy to forget Pinker.

There are lots of salient points in the song "Ain't Goin' To Goa", but I'm afraid I fail to see how any of them are relevant to this discussion.

Think I've made my points comprehensively enough now, but I would like to know what that salient point is :) Ddawkins73 (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned up the article to remove statements and sections that suggested paradigm was true. So OR not such a problem. What remain is the issue of notability. Google search establishes: completely non-notable.

There may be an article which can incorporate some of the material re experiments done, eg on human perception in Psychology. Can't be bothered looking myself. This page a clear delete anyhow. Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2009 (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.