Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Body Theory


 * 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. Consensus is that this is original research.  Sandstein  18:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Big Body Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I was looking through this article and that buzz it's caused including at the no original research noticeboard and thought an AfD may be necessary to evaluate this article. Notifying author and users,  (not sure if you've seen this AfD by now, I'm now noticing you removed some info and you commented about it therefore you may be interested) and. SwisterTwister  talk  07:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  07:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. ery nice essay, but it's original research. Every individual statement in the article can probably be verified, but putting it together is WP:SYNTHESIS.  DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as synthesis (and possibly a hoax). The term "big body theory" returns precisely zero results on Google Scholar. "Big body" barely appears in the titles of the sources or in the quotes in the references section, and "big body theory" does not appear at all. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Passes WP:DUCK as a blatant but well written hoax. Fiddle   Faddle  07:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete clear case of wp:syn, zero notability Shrikanthv (talk) 07:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - But I want to comment that the theory that a large enough company or other organization that has a celluar structure should be viewed as akin to a living organism is a topic that exists and has been debated, just not under this name (and certainly not using all of this original research). The closest wiki article that I can think of that touches on this is the one for Friedrich Hayek's "spontaneous order" concept, but that's a crude fit and that page there needs a lot of work anyways. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that insight, CoffeeWithMarkets. While I can't say that I understood everything in the article under discussion, I did get the sense that it at least had some basis in scholarship, so it's good to have this confirmed and to get a view from someone who is familiar with the literature. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article fails the WP:N and appears to be hoax. —  San ska ri  Hangout 13:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm, is there a Wait a minute option? Sorry to arrive late, but am in rustic India and connectivity is iffy. I am the principal author of this page and a Wiki editing novice so all of this is new to me including the implications of many of the acronyms. "Hoax", "Truthfulness" and "Factual Accuracy" I do understand, however, and would appreciate a bit more detail. The piece may have its problems, but not in those categories. So where is all this truth disputing and accuracy question going on? Is it possible to visit to present a defense? Eklingdas (talk) 22:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Eklingdas, if you want to explain why you think the article should be kept, you should do so here. A key concern is that there don't appear to be sources that discuss big body theory, as a Google search demonstrates. Perhaps you could explain where the idea comes from? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the earliest public discussion the "Big Body" term appeared in was the March 2000 colloquium cited. Googling "Big Body Heuristics" will connect to that. In any case, the quotes I posted to show its use and currency were subsequently deleted by someone as "unnecessary". I have provisionally restored them, largely to ground this discussion and demonstrate this is not a solipsistic fantasy. In general though the attempt of the piece was/is to represent all the rigorous organismic appreciations of corporate entities that are occurring now whether or not the cited subjects are using that exact vocabulary. Given the evident corporate domination of our societies today that organismic perspective seemed both notable and relevant, both as a socio-political topic of concern & discussion and a true evolutionary artifact. What puzzles me and prompted this contribution is the total absence of Wikipedia contributions to our understanding of this supersession though WP is supposed to be a living mirror of our era. As noted in the discussion above the closest ref is the "spontaneous order" piece, which is not exactly revelatory. Big Body socio-political preeminence is not a partisan issue or even a debatable topic today so the lack of Wiki contributions to our understanding of the phenomenon were/are of real concern. I know all of you here are committed to the integrity of WP and it is a truly blessed creation, but as a living record of our past and present, should it not also address this evolutionary turning? As for the cited sources that do not explicitly use the BB terminology, they are at least recognizing the organismic aspects of these bodies and trying to draw useful conclusions. I would have been happy enough if another page had addressed this phenomenon and I could just have made helpful inclusions. But here we have the most profound emergent phenomenon of our times and our people's encyclopedia really has nothing to say about it. Regarding the inaccurate, untruthful and hoax charges that are now emblazoned across the top of the page, would the accusers please offer some details? Oh, and it's now 6:30 AM here and Eid is beginning, meaning the mosques are all cranking their PA systems up and we're about to lose electricity. Will continue this tomorrow...Eklingdas (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Interesting perview may be, but please refer to wp:fringe there may be many theories and also many possibility of permutations and combinations of existing theories but that does not mean that we have to make it notable through wiki as it amounts to WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, would suggest to draft a paper in some journals and once its notable then I see no problem in adding this here, also I do not understand what the topic has to do with being an Indian ? Shrikanthv (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Shrikanthv, this has nothing to do with ethnicity, was just indicating the communication challenges of our location, like the frequent brown-outs and the 16-hr network outage last night. Re your comment if you do know of other existing theories covering this turf, I would sincerely appreciate some pointers. Also would ask, since I really don't know, if the primary litmus of Notability here is peer-reviewed papers? Eklingdas (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Eklingdas, I think the problem with the article is demonstrated by your statement that: "In general though the attempt of the piece was/is to represent all the rigorous organismic appreciations of corporate entities that are occurring now whether or not the cited subjects are using that exact vocabulary". This would be acceptable in an essay or scholarly publication, but on Wikipedia it is called synthesis and not allowed. If there isn't a coherent body of literature on something called "big body theory", we can't have an article that brings together several different ideas under that heading. You also write about Wikipedia's "contributions to our understanding", but note that Wikipedia isn't supposed to make original contributions to knowledge. All it does is report what reliable sources say about subjects, and there don't appear to be any reliable sources that establish that "big body theory" exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cordless Larry Please note my synthesis question below, and regarding your observation "Wikipedia isn't supposed to make original contributions to knowledge" I thought the use of the term by a number of reputable figures in a semi-public discussion sort of indicated its "existence" in the zeitgeist and could therefore be legitimately reported upon. Is the real issue here actually Notability as was suggested elsewhere? Also would still appreciate some clarification on the "untruthful", "hoax", etc, charges that are still publicly heading the piece. Those are extremely serious allegations and I still have not seen them owned or validated. Eklingdas (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The lack of scholarly publications on the theory is a notability issue (I don't think workshop or conferences papers are enough to establish notability), but I still think there's an issue with whether the theory actually exists. Did these reputable figures discuss something called "big body theory"? Cordless Larry (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cordless Larry, sorry I missed this comment on my last pass, but yes, discussion of that subject was the premise of the colloquium - and it was discussed there as you may notice in the referenced comments and submissions. Regarding notability, I note WP has its own definitional parameters that extend a bit beyond Webster's "unusual and worth noticing", but it does add the heartening notes: "occasional exceptions may apply" and "Focus on improvements, not rules". It just seems like this perspective is indeed "worthy of notice", but maybe I am taking the "Be bold!" injunction too seriously.Eklingdas (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On notability, I suggest that you consult WP:NOTE. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the hoax point, I would suggest that you regard that as of secondary importance for the time being. Unless the synthesis argument is addressed, the article is going to be deleted, so the fact that it is tagged as a possible hoax is a moot point. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but being labeled a hoax in front of your millions of readers without any explanation or rationale is a lot like being noisily branded a liar, a thief or a child molester, and not very "moot" at all.Eklingdas (talk) 17:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My point was that as things stand, the article will shortly be deleted, so that branding will no longer exist. If the article survives, then we can discuss the removal of the templates, but if you want to save the article then you need to address the concerns expressed here. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as this appears to consist of nothing but WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, and could effectively be a theory coined and put together by its authors. The lack of sources backing this up, such as the 0 Google scholar results, also suggests it has no place in an encyclopedia. --Rubbish computer 23:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm going to point out that, without prejudice either way to whether this other article survives or not, from my research into how people have deliberately created businesses and other organizations (such as software companies and guerrilla warfare groups) modeled after biological life I've went ahead and set up the separate article cellular organizational structure. In my opinion, a lot of the original research problems with Big Body Theory is that two wholly different concepts are conflated and merged. "Does organization X act like a cell-based, living thing?" is quite different than "Is organization X a malicious living thing, something like the giant bug monster from Starship Troopers or such, and should be fought?" Both may be true (or both false), but they're not the same. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * CoffeeWithMarkets, appreciate the comment, but there is liberal mention of the analogical use of the organismic concept in management circles (cf, The Living Company's international best seller status in the business community). And when you are discussing the nature of a novel life form or any new phenomenon, it seems pretty legitimate to simultaneously cite perceptions of both its positive and negative aspects, cf, Atomic power, Genetically modified food, Human cloning, etc. Finally, I have trouble understanding where lines are crossed in the Synthesis arena since most WP articles I've read seem to cite a wide multiplicity of (sometimes conflicting) sources to explain a topic, whether that topic is Abraham Lincoln, the Vietnam War or Corporatism. How does that source selection/collation process differ from Synthesis?Eklingdas (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per et al.  We don't publish new ideas -- see WP:OR, WP:NEO, and WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I have changed the tags to more accurately reflect this discussion, and to avoid discord. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2015 (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.