Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive Triangulation

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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Triangulation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Psychological theory. Neologism / original research. Even the author admits on the talk page that it "lacks widespread use because it is a new concept". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at Dara V. Wakefield's list of publications, and I see no evidence that these claimed studies have been properly written up, peer reviewed, and published, and the same done for the resultant ideas. Certainly, the stark contrast between the "Wakefield D" citation in the article, which points to nothing, and the others, which point to identifiable literature, is quite telling. This appears to be an abuse of Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a means to perform an end-run around the proper academic publication process. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, leeeenngthy Original Research. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, and, well..... Cognition is superficially similar to Google™ as it searches a schema, but with a key difference: Cognition requires logical connections among search parameters. A Boolean Google™ search finds concepts, but does not logically connect them. The closest parallel might be the use of quotation marks in a search. A search of arctic zebra yields over a million hits (all cases of these two terms appearing on a single webpage), but entering “arctic zebra” (with quotation marks) yields approximately one hundred hits (all arctic zebra references). “Pancreatic buzzer” is a no-hitter on Google™. The amazing thing is that we can understand why “pancreatic buzzer” it is a no-hitter, yet imagine buzzers for pancreatic functions (as well as deduce a surefire way to find this manuscript on the Internet). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. It sounds smart, but is just nonsense. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that it is nonsense. This original research or at least "original theorizing" makes as much sense as most theories in cognitive psychology, but Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing new scientific theories. One problem in getting it published in a quality journal of cognitive psychology is that no testable predictions are made, other than anecdotes about some class the author taught and no experiments are reported, other than an anecdote or two. To have an article here, the author's concept should have been published, in a reliable source, and preferably should have substantial discussion by others in the field in journals or textbooks. Edison (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2010 (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.