Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecological cognition

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 of the debate was delete. Concerns about this article being original research are not satisfactorialy adressed because the sources provided in the article are not reliable enough (either unpublished or only published on a single, personal, website). Also, votes from entirely new users are discarded leaving only one or two valid "keep" votes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ecological cognition

edit

I propose to delete this article. A google search for "ecological cognition" does not bring up any references to this guy bishop (other than his own webpage). Ecological psychology is an important branch of psychology, and there are centers devoted to it (e.g. CESPA at the university of connecticut). Ecological psychology has much to say on the subject of cognition. What is this fellow saying that has not been said by the 50 year old community of ecological psychologists, that is so important that we need a whole new "branch of cognitive psychology"?

I suspect that this article has been written by Bishop himself. What he says does seem to be related to ecological psychology, but rather superficially. You cannot just coin some phrase and then put an article up on wikipedia suggesting that you have invented a disicpline!! To make that claim, you need to have a large body of publications, and several researchers other than yourself using your ideas. This guy graduated a couple of years ago (not in psychology, neuroscience or cognitive science I might add) and has knocked together a couple of papers on E-learning. From this we are expected to regard his body of work as a discipline comparable to ecological psychology. This is the kind of stuff that puts wikipedia into disrepute.

Duracell 19:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The work of Kyttä and Bishop on ecological cognition are both highly credible. Kyttä's work was accepted for a PhD and Bishop's was accepted on a conference on Post Cognitivist Psychology. Bishop is known to be writing on ecological cognition for journals with high impact factors and a book to be published by Oxford University Press. WelshAspie 13:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Non notable - very few non-Wikipedia Google hits. [1] Blackcats 17:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Since when has Google been the source for what's coming out of academia? Besides, the ecological cognition page existed long before Duracell joined Wikipedia, so what gives him the right to ask for content to be deleted? Wikipedia should restrict VfD to users that have been in the community a long time to prevent abuse of it like we are seeing from Duracell --Cardydwen 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was Cardydwen's fourth edit, and his only one that did not occur on January 18. —Cryptic (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment for Cardydwen. Get off your soapbox and stop being so testy about this AFD. ALL EDITORS have the right to NOMINATE an article for deletion on whatever grounds they believe are appropriate. The 'community' then decides if those grounds are sufficient by casting their votes and and Admin acts on the result. Entendiste? Eddie.willers 06:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I have been using wikipedia since its inception, but I do not keep the same user name. What on earth has the length of time an article has been on wikipedia got to do with whether it is any good?? And in any case, what qualifies to propose the aricle be deleted is that I am educated on the subject matter of ecological cognition. I am exactly the sort of person you want to be looking at this article. What about you Cardywen? Do *you* know anything about it?Duracell 03:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Duracell. -- Kjkolb 05:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I forgot to mention...Delete as unverified postmodern jibberjabber. The article quotes 2 unpublished sources and one that focuses on a narrow application of the field. Eddie.willers 06:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kvcad [2]. If you have criticisms of Kyttä and Bishop's outstanding and groundbreaking research why not make them on the page? It seems to me we have two young researchers making progress in post cognitivist psychology and all their not so academic peers can do is try to destroy the progress they have made. I have an interest in all forms of psychology, as you can see from my edits, I think ecological cognition and situated cognition are very interesting theories and we should not deprive people like Kvcad of finding out about them. Psychologesetz 12:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article describes a novel branch of study and cites no sources. Three papers are given as further reading: two are unpublished works, and one is published only on the author's own web site. The article thus constitutes original research. Delete unless reliable sources that show this is an established field of study are provided. —Cryptic (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is OR and should be despatched with prejudice. Eusebeus 15:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would like to think that we have better ways of knowing the value of information than simply seeing what the Google knows about it, but if we are forced to use the popular media to aprove academic work lets look at the China International Magazine which recently covered the issue of dealing with the problem of internet addiction using a methodology based in the post cognitivist psychology of Ecological cognition. Mark W Beech 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless rewritten as a more general article not focused on these two researchers. Google Scholar finds less than 25 relevant hits, and it does appear that the term is at least occasionally used in the field, but it certainly does not appear to have originated with these two; this looks like someone's putting a spin on very recent research. Bikeable 05:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a principle in law of proportionality, which says a court must decide whether a measure is proportional to the aim. I beleive deleting this page would not be proportional, the proportional thing to do would be to edit the page so it sounds more like the situated cognition page, which says it is contemporary instead of sounding like it has existed a long time. By all means this article should be edited, but not deleted. RichardKent 09:53, 15 December 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ecological_cognition&oldid=1080064029"