Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Agency 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 WP:OR.  Sandstein  08:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Cultural Agency Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article appears to be an attempt to post an academic journal article on Wikipedia. While no copyright violation can be found, the article appears to comprise original research and synthesis, drawing new conclusions based on the cited source material. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Even the firstmost source cited doesn't seem to contain the term? Seems like mostly heavy WP:SYNTH as mentioned by nominator. This is all I were able to find to use the term in our article's context: . There is the general concept of agency theory, and the word "cultural" is sometimes latched on to that term. But these other uses that I were able to find were different from our article's. Mr. Magoo (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WikiDan's explanation. It's pretty clearly ripped right from an academic paper with all the broken reference formatting left intact. Jergling (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Nom and editors above. (some academic journals now advise article authors to do self-promote their published articles on Wikipedia.) E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

)Just solved disambiguation problem. Now I'am working to simplify the topic to make it more understandable for the readers. Also references are made (to solve the problem "orphan page") on its all'agency theory page and adapt complex system (CAS). The problem of disambiguations is resolved. We look forward to your comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dadif89 (talk • contribs)
 * Disambiguation is not the problem here. Nor is the complexity of the article. The article is too complex for most Wikipedia readers to understand, but that can be fixed. The problem with this article, and the reason it is being considered for deletion, is that it appears to comprise a great deal of original research, which is not what Wikipedia is about. You need to find a more conventional venue to publish your article, such as a journal on social systems or some such. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * CAT is not a my personal idea. It is (at least) 10 years old. It is a successful paradigm not yet represented through Wiki: my proposal is to talk about it, refferring to the main systemic authors which contributed to the theory development (Beer, Schwarz, Yolles etc)
 * Cross referencing improved:


 * in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_systems
 * in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_systems_theory
 * in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory
 * in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis 12:57, 21 September 2016


 * Comment I'm coming around on this one. It's going to take a lot of work to make this article accessible, but I understand that the author has written a review of the topic rather than an original treatise on the topic. Since other editors have agreed to delete, I won't withdraw the nomination, but rather change my own position to weak keep. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC)



Dear editors, we are working a lot to fix the page on the light of your kind suggestions. Thank you for your comprehension. I had also the pleasure to share the page with your Yolles Professor in the person who has asked me to post this comment on his behalf: ''This wiki entry is not an attempt to introduce new material to wiki. It is not original research and synthesis, since much of it comes from two books by Yolles in 1999 and 2006, plus additional publications over the last 9 years. This website is also a reflection of the book by Guo et al (2016) that defines cultural agency theory in most of its aspects, and is a summary of previous wok. The intention is to ensure that the new paradigm, which is now mature, is illustrated in terms of its antecedents. In particular, the work of Eric Schwarz, seen to be very important and almost lost to the academic world except through the work of Yolles and his colleagues, does need to be recognised historically. A tribute to the work of Schwarz has now also been entered into the wiki site, who died in 2015 with almost no recognition of the significance or potential of his work...a very sad state of affairs for such an important but overlooked academic.''--Dadif89 (talk) 09:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


 * And yet, nothing in the article indicates that this is a unique or notable concept. In fact, it never actually defines "Cultural Agency Theory"; instead, it lists what it CAT could potentially do (which is essentially nothing). It's mostly cited within a small ring of closely-connect authors (Schwarz, Beer, Yolles), which does not indicate notability. The content of several sections is basically word salad which does not serve to describe the concept at hand, instead opting to say "the sky is blue" in as many ways as possible. Unsurprisingly, the freely available references are written in a similar manner.


 * In my opinion and outside of the scope of this AfD, it smells like postmodern bunk. It really gets my goat that there are academics out there throwing math- and science-isms around like this and and believing it's comparable to someone using actual math and science to advance control theory. It's like the academic version of a mimic - none of the cost and all of the reward. -Jergling (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Systems and network theory are increasingly being applied to social systems, with an eye toward understanding the behaviors of populations on a macro scale. These applications have already been applied in the field of counter-terrorism and organized crime, and could lead to all sorts of sociological advances. This is not pseudo-science, or a case of academics throwing around "science-isms", but actual science with actual, concrete outcomes. I agree that the article is vaguely worded and full of jargon that conveys little meaning to the average reader, but the same could be said for most of Wikipedia's articles on topics related to relativity theory or quantum mechanics. Complex subjects are often difficult to boil down to language accessible to laymen. I hope this article can be improved to meet that goal. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not trying to discredit cybernetics/social systems theory as a whole (although I'd appreciate it if you could give references to its applications in criminology). It's specifically the way this article (and the sources) are written. This content seeks to describe, rather than analyze or extend, a laundry list of systems concepts to no apparent end. It would be one thing if it were a list of assumptions building used to draw a logical conclusion, but instead it's just a list of assumptions and long names for simple concepts. I'm reminded of the slough of "nature inspired algorithms" that showed up here a month ago all describing roughly the same trivial and naive methodology and claiming to "potentially solve" the Travelling Salesman Problem. -Jergling (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have modified the opening to respond to comments about not defining what CAT is. In other words, I tried to explain in simple terms (even the average person to understand) a systemic theory --Dadif89 (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This article looks like a review of primary sources discussing cultural agency theory (CAT) and earlier theories it is based on. As such, it is a synthesis of primary sources that does not belong on Wikipedia, per WP:SYNTH--we don't write articles drawing our own conclusions about primary sources, we summarize secondary sources, such as published reviews or books on CAT. I've been unable to find independent secondary sources on cultural agency theory, so in addition to synth problems, this topic also seems to fail notability thresholds per WP:GNG. Lastly, even as an academic work, this "review" has major neutrality problems. Everything I have found suggests that CAT was created by Yolles and colleagues. Yolles credits Schwarz and Beer with earlier work upon which CAT is based, but despite this article being about 80% centered on Schwarz, there is no evidence that Schwarz created CAT or ever called it that. This is a tribute piece to Schwarz pretending to be an encyclopedia article on CAT. Without independent reliable sources discussing cultural agency theory in depth, we cannot write a neutral WP:N, verifiable WP:V article on the topic. Hence deletion seems warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 10:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * After reading the comments on this page, Maurice Yolles asked me to bring his point of view. I quote:

''"In response to the reviewers, a lot of changes have been made. For instance the insightful comment from the reviewer "nothing in the article indicates that this is a unique or notable concept" has been addressed reflecting the uniqueness in the summary, and creating a definition in terms of its use. Another useful comment is that it is "mostly cited within a small ring of closely-connect authors." While this is correct, one must question the significance of this comment. It is a paradigm supported by a group of people, with its own website (now indicated in the website): http://www.octresearch.net. However, its growing popularity is represented through an increasing download of its papers. For instance the paper cited by Dauber et al has had in excess of 5000 downloads and 27 citations in under 3 years. A new book defining the topic is also coming out this month published by Cambridge University Press. Two authors in the group also have "advanced standing" ReseearchGate ranking, principally due to interest in this work. An attempt to reduce the "word salad" has been made, including a tightening of references. Additional adjustments to the website include moving text from the dissipative systems section into the Schrwarzian modelling section where it belongs. More wiki and other links have been created for technical terms, and the text has been smoothed in an attempt to improve understanding. The text overall now properly conforms the the wiki model. Elaboration has also been made to the background of Schwarz, who should not be another lost hero."'' Dadif89 (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * CommentI think is an important voice that was actually missing in wikipedia. The citations are correct. and it is well written. It should be kept on the wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf1974 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Please keep it. The subject is important and the content is well written. Can be arobust reference for scholars and students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.28.147.25 (talk) 08:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The page has been structurally modified trusting that, in this way, it can be maintained on wiki. the images with copyright issues were removed. And about secondary sources: it is coming out a book using CAT by Guo et al If the problem is with history and foundation, we can keep only the first sections: 1 What is CAT? 2 The Nature of Agency, considering this page as an important point of view in systemic theory, actually missing in wikipedia.Dadif89 Dadif89 (talk) 11:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * * Comment Actually, if the article is retained, I would recommend deleting the section on the "Nature of agency" as Wikipedia already has an entire article on the topic (Agency (philosophy)), and the content here represents a content fork which is undesirable.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * From the Google Books page for the Guo, et. al., book, I see that it has not been published yet, so obviously cannot be a source at this time. If/when the book does come out, one of the authors is Yolles, the originator of CAT. Hence the book cannot be considered an independent reliable source by Wikipedia's WP:RS and WP:INDEPENDENT criteria. Without independent reliable sources, no one can reliably write a neutral, verifiable article on the topic. --Mark viking (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2016 (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.