Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Categorical perception


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Categorical perception
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a free web host for publishing journal articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 14:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article has good material in it, and the topic is sufficiently important to warrant representation in Wikipedia. I am satisfied that its appearance in Wikipedia does not violate any copyright based on Harnad's response and the changes to the entry relative to the earlier encyclopedia article on categorical perception. 15:39, 3:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Definitely a legitemate, notable academic topic, based on the sources in the article and through a Google Books search. There's definitely room for cleanup, but I don't think it's necessarily fatal. I've instructed the original contributor to file with OTRS on the copyright issue. Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is a work of original research. That is not what Wikipedia is for. How many of the sources in the article mention categorical perception, are the there to verify other subjects which are then bought together by original synthesis to build this article? Which of the books hits are about this categorical perception? Regarding the copyright issue, given that this was published in Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science would we also need permission from them? duffbeerforme (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't be too defensive in order to score cheap point of deleting article you misthought is OR. Not talk of "mentioning," which is ubiquitous (if one really searches), below are academic books all published by internationally respected publishers, they all have "Categorical perception" in title and "discuss it" in entire content. The fact that you didn't see or know doesn't meant it doesn't exists. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This is far, far from OR or journal webshosting. In good faith, it seems you forgot to do WP:BEFORE. "Categorical perception" (aka, CP) is well known topic and covered "specifically" in  Academic books: Published by Cambridge Press,, Published by Standford University , Significant discusion , Published by Indiana University . Dedicated chapter in academic book . Extensively discussed by authoritative Journal Nature  and equally reputable Sage Pub . "Catogorical perception" in the news , plus , , , . Another extensive academic discussion of Categorical perception specifically  –Ammarpad (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 09:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I had originally closed this as a clear keep. However, after being requested to look into this by the nominator, I got curious and ran a check using Earwig's tool...and given the results I'm struggling to come up with a good reason not to speedy delete, or at least blank, this as WP:COPYVIO, and have accordingly relisted it in case somebody can supply a good reason why it isn't. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , I will try to rewrite it. The sheer volume of resources about this topic is what made me to missed that problem, which is also unbeknown to me, since the article wasn't tagged as such. Nonetheless, we don't normally brought copyvio in AfD (in my knowledge), when I read his nom statement, it is clear to me he meant this is not place to host what one journal published i.e OR, and I searched for sources and find quite opposite. If it were clear CV he should have G11'd it, or take it to appropriate noticeboard if bit hesitant. –Ammarpad (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, which is another reason I didn't outright blank it myself. I will not object if any patrolling admin does so, of course. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ammarpad'a dismissive and insulting claims aside, Wikipedia is not a host of primary articles on the topic. Wikipedia is not here to help researchers promote their personal take on a topic. If there is a valid encyclopaedia article to be written on this topic, this is not it. Copying what I wrote on The Bushrangers talk when asking for rethinking, 1, claiming that it is not original research shows a misunderstanding about how science research works. People are meant to do research. That's what gets published. A straight out copy of that research is still that research. 2, claiming that it is not just rehosting when the link provided in the nomination Cleary proves that it is just rehosting. duffbeerforme (talk)
 * Please can you show me that specific "insulting remark" towards you so that I strike it? And I apologize for it in advance. Thanks –Ammarpad (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I explained before, I wrote the Wiley encyclopedia entry in 2006 (originally in 2003, for Nature/Macmillan, who then transferred it to Wiley in 2006); I only granted Nature/Macmillan/Wiley the non-exclusive right to publish it, but did not transfer copyright to Nature/Macmillan/Wiley (I am an open access advocate): I retained copyright and also posted the article on WP in 2006 . Then, when asked recently by Patar knight this December 2017 to put the original text in the pulic domain to make sure WP is not violating copyright, I did that too: Ticket#2017120110008571] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_perception to Alfred Neumann, followed by a link to a copy of the original . Now the WP page has changed a lot across the years since 2006; that's why the WP entry is no longer identical to the verbatim 2006 encyclopedia entry -- but that is what happens with WP entries: they keep getting edited and updated. And an encyclopedia entry, whether in Wiley's Enyclopedia of Cognitive Science or in Wikipedia is just that: an encylopedia entry, not original research. --User:Harnad (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2017 (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.