Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cargo cult programming


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Both sides raise valid arguments, but some of those on the minority Delete side seem like issues that can be fixed editorially, without the need to blow it up and start afresh. Notability of the concept, rather than its name, seems adequately supported by those on the Keep side. Discussion about renaming can proceed on the article's Talk page. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Cargo cult programming

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This appears to be a dictionary definition, padded out with content on other subjects. The only source cited actually discussing the article topic is a hacker dictionary. The 'origin' section at minimum borders on WP:OR, and is mostly off-topic, while the 'Cargo cult software engineering' section starts with an explicit statement to the effect that it is off-topic. An online search for the article topic itself fails to locate the significant coverage in WP:RS necessary to establish notability: instead, we find a few blog entries and similar, along with instances of the phrase being used. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a well-known concept in software engineering. The Hacker's Dictionary is a reliable source for computing-related subjects, as is the book by Steve McConnell that is cited. Ample other sources are available, for example, , , , . It has received scholarly study as well: , , . Easily meets WP:GNG. Jfire (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The first source you cite is completely and utterly wrong about the actual 'cargo cults' this supposed ritualised programming practice is being compared to (I could go into great detail, but just as a teaser, I'll note that documented 'cults' pre-date the aeroplane, never mind WW2, and that in as much as 'cargo' ever played a part, it was a relatively small part of what were actually complex indigenous political/religious reactions to the rapid social change and growing economic/political inequalities of colonialism. The anthropological literature on this phenomenon is extensive, and precisely none of it supports this reductionist 'stupid primitives' narrative). If that is a 'reliable source', what would an unreliable one look like? Same for the second. And so on. Most of the sources you link do little more than assert that 'cargo cult programming exists', and those that do define it through analogy based on a wrong-headed and frankly offensive counterfactual popular-culture trivialisation of movements and events documented within anthropology. A dictionary definition at best, repeated ad nauseum. If programmers think that using the term 'cargo cult' and then telling a fairy tale constitutes an actual definition of anything, that's their choice. I see no reason for Wikipedia to present their ritual incantations as based on fact... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep per Jfire's sources. Additionally, the article is (or at least should be?) about a concept, not the specific words "cargo cult programming" and "cargo cult software engineering", so I find the notion that "cargo-cult software engineering" is off-topic incorrect. It's clearly the same topic. ~ A412  talk! 19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Further comment: nom seems to have an agenda to WP:RGW. And while I feel for their position on the misappropriation of the term "cargo cult" to describe this concept in computer science / software engineering, this is the WP:COMMONNAME of this concept, and "Ritualistic incorporation of commonly used patterns that serve no purpose in programming" would not be a title useful to readers. ~ A412  talk! 06:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I find the suggestion that the scope of WP:RGW should include noting that an article has been disseminating factually-incorrect content based on sources that rely on pop-cult just-so stories to perpetuate an offensive stereotype for over twenty years somewhat disheartening. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: The Origin section as it stood was rewritten precisely to address the cultural misapprehensions that Andy is so keen to have addressed. It's quite the irony to insist that people refer to research that has refined the understanding of CCs, then declare it original research and off-topic when it is represented in the article! 2601:642:4600:BE10:7463:209D:F5A6:DF1F (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * With hindsight my initial approach, aimed at rectifying the appalling misrepresentations of 'cargo cults' as it stood in the article, might not have been the most appropriate. If I'd taken more note of the paucity and inadequacy of sources being cited, rather than the utterly wrong-headed 'stupid brown people' narrative I saw there, I'd probably have nominated the article for deletion sooner. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: Well, regardless of political arguments within the academic field of cultural anthropology were taking place in the 1990s-2000s (?), this does seem like a term used by computer programmers, and the sources support this. I do not really see what's wrong with the article. jp×g🗯️ 02:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Anthropology has been discussing and debating 'cargo cults' (a term going out of favour) since the 1950's, if not earlier. The debate is ongoing. As for 'terms', they generally belong in dictionaries, unless subject to considerably more reliably-sourced analysis. Wikipedia requires in-depth coverage of subject matter in multiple reliable sources. Not sources 'using' the term, but sources 'discussing' it in depth. All I'm seeing are sources which either take it as read everyone knows what they are referring to, or defining it through hand-waving analogy with popular-culture pseudoanthropology. The sources seem to be reliably vague, reliably useless, and/or reliably wrong. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Redirect to cargo cult since the article does appear to have the problems previously raised in Articles for deletion/Big ball of mud. In this case there is the added wrinkle that "cargo cult" is a broadly applied metaphor and its metaphorical usage in various contexts is offered to support the notability of the specific term in the Jargon File, which was based on one student's usage at the University of Iowa in the early 1990s. The cargo cult article should eventually have a short section on the term's metaphorical use outside and in Melanesia that can serve as a more specific redirect target. 2601:642:4600:BE10:7463:209D:F5A6:DF1F (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The redirect proposed would be improper, since the cargo cult article doesn't discuss cargo cult programming, and nor should it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It can be noted in passing within a section on the metaphor, cited to Lindstrom and Jarvis. 2601:642:4600:BE10:B80A:F3BD:A39F:7FA5 (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Do either Lindstrom or Jarvis discuss 'cargo cult programming'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jarvis describes it as an example of the metaphor, and Lindstrom mentions "cargo cult computer code" for the same purpose. 2601:642:4600:BE10:B80A:F3BD:A39F:7FA5 (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: There seems to be consensus against deletion, but it would be useful to get more views about a possible merge or redirect. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  13:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep very useful and well known concept in the field of programming. פרה (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per analogy with the discussion at TalL:Cargo cult science. The cargo cult part is misused and the whole article is working as a definition. This is not the Wiktionary.--ReyHahn (talk) 01:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not merely a dictionary definition, but it is a term for a specific anti-pattern that is found in computer programming. Coverage of this as an anti-pattern (rather than as a mere term) can be found on Page 381 of this book, on page 38 of this book, in this paper, and in others. There are even some full-length reflections by experts in the field about this sort of anti-pattern. The application of the "cargo cult" metaphor to programming dates back to at least 1983, and it remains a fairly standard pitfall in the programming world; I'm even able to find containerization-related cargo cult programming papers being published. And the security implications of cargo cult programming is described both in this paper and this one. This isn't the wiktionary, but I do think that this sort of thing goes beyond a mere dictionary definition. That the metaphor might be a misnomer, as the nominator suggests, is totally irrelevant to notability of the anti-pattern itself. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. In my opinion, it's an important concept. Richard Feynman coined the term "Cargo Cult Science" and this is the software engineering equivalent.  Feynman's original use is here:
 * https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
 * This article gives some modern examples of the problem:
 * https://medium.com/the-engineering-manager-guide/cargo-cult-programming-is-killing-the-sri-lankan-software-industry-e5e9fc9a3ff9
 * Here are more examples with the lessons to learn:
 * https://blog.ndepend.com/cargo-cult-programming/ Ainsinga (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are problems with the current article, but it should be possible to write a better one. This is a commonly-addressed topic in computing courses and textbooks. The standard Google and database searches may not turn up material buried in lectures, books, conferences, and so on. Rjjiii  (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2024 (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.