Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Principles of grouping


 * 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. (non-admin closure) C T J F 8 3  chat 20:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Principles of grouping

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page has remained unpatrolled for over three weeks because neither I nor anyone else can decide whether it meets our criteria for inclusion. The community should decide. Kudpung (talk) 13:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Has anyone even bothered to research the subject, or even to just look at the sources cited for it so far? I notice that Project:WikiProject Psychology participants weren't even asked about the article.  If they had been asked, they'd probably have observed that  cited at the bottom of this article cites quite a few sources.  They'd probably have mentioned a few more, easily found, sources on the subject of the Gestalt principles of perception a.k.a. the Gestalt laws of visual/perceptual organization a.k.a. the Gestalt laws of grouping, too:
 * There's even another easily found encyclopaedia that discusses this same subject:
 * Irving and Palmer, who are acknowledged as having built upon the work of Max Wertheimer and others with some new laws, note that Werheimer's laws have come to be called the "Gestalt laws of grouping" but state that this very title, principles of grouping, "is perhaps a more appropriate description".
 * Just putting this very title into a search engine would have turned up literature on the subject (such as which was the fourth result when I put "principles of grouping" into Google Books). So again I ask: Had anyone actually bothered to look? Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: this is an important topic in perceptual psychology, as Uncle G's literature search shows. WP needs an article on it, and it needs to be prominently linked from Gestalt_psychology MartinPoulter (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up. This article should certainly be in wikipedia, as it covers an important topic in psychology, and as Uncle G notes, references are easy to find.  It appears that the article was apparently created by User:Txchen92 entirely between December 13 and December 15.  Then, it appears that the user got a massive number of (bot generated) templates about copyvio, and unclear copyright status of images on December 14 and 15, stopped editing wikipedia, and then was blocked indefinitely on December 17/18 (notice dated December 18th).  So, at this point, the primary contributor would have been blocked, and could not have responded to any of the patrols, even if he/she had understood.  It seems like this is a case of a newbie making a good faith attempt, not understanding policies and probably now having been bot-scared off.  The topic itself should be included in wikipedia.  I've looked to see if this is *indeed* a copyvio (as opposed to just bot-tagging because it *might* be, as was the case for the images), and I find only two hits for the text in the WP:LEAD, our page, and another page, dated January 2, 2011, that explicitly states that it is drawing on the wiki page, so I do not actually find any evidence that the text is a copyvio, and the images are only bot-suspected, not demonstrated copyvios.  I'd love to be able to actually look at the images and see if they *are* copyvios, but since they've been bot-deleted, we can't do that either.  I think that the blocking admin might want to take another look at this, too, since this user may have been blocked too hastily.  Edhubbard (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Several of the deleted images are derived works of non-free content, such as an annotated version of the IBM logo and a trimmed version of the WWF logo. They were only used as examples.  We should come up with free content example images.  Providing free content encyclopaedic content is, after all, our mandate.  Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I've copied over a few images that are appropriate in the Principles of grouping article from the Gestalt psychology article, but I agree that things like the IBM logo and the WWF logo should not have been used.  We can certainly create suitable images ourselves that don't rely on copyrighted logos and images.  I still think that the editor who started the grouping article might have been somewhat too hastily blocked, but I've now brought that up separately on the blocking admin's talk page. Edhubbard (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even though the article lacks references and could use some critical rephrasing and extension, content-wise it is rather accurate. Grouping principles are 'classics' in gestalt psychology, and you can look it up in any better encyclopedia on the topic, e.g.: "Gestalt theory" in Goldstein - Encyclopedia of Perception, Vol. 1 & 2 (2010), or "Principles of perceptual grouping" in Nadel (Ed.) - Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (2003). An extra article makes perfect sense, and this one is an acceptable start. Morton Shumway  —  talk  20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC). Additional info: the article paraphrases the list on p. 281 of Gray's "Psychology" (e.g. 4th edition 2001), chapter 8: "The Psychology of Vision", section "Built-in Rules for Organizing Stimulus Elements into Wholes". It is clearly not a transcript.  Morton Shumway  —  talk  21:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This concept appears in every Psychology 100 textbook I've encountered as a instructor for that course. A fundamental idea in visual perception. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2011 (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.
 * Several of the deleted images are derived works of non-free content, such as an annotated version of the IBM logo and a trimmed version of the WWF logo. They were only used as examples.  We should come up with free content example images.  Providing free content encyclopaedic content is, after all, our mandate.  Uncle G (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I've copied over a few images that are appropriate in the Principles of grouping article from the Gestalt psychology article, but I agree that things like the IBM logo and the WWF logo should not have been used.  We can certainly create suitable images ourselves that don't rely on copyrighted logos and images.  I still think that the editor who started the grouping article might have been somewhat too hastily blocked, but I've now brought that up separately on the blocking admin's talk page. Edhubbard (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even though the article lacks references and could use some critical rephrasing and extension, content-wise it is rather accurate. Grouping principles are 'classics' in gestalt psychology, and you can look it up in any better encyclopedia on the topic, e.g.: "Gestalt theory" in Goldstein - Encyclopedia of Perception, Vol. 1 & 2 (2010), or "Principles of perceptual grouping" in Nadel (Ed.) - Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science (2003). An extra article makes perfect sense, and this one is an acceptable start. Morton Shumway  —  talk  20:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC). Additional info: the article paraphrases the list on p. 281 of Gray's "Psychology" (e.g. 4th edition 2001), chapter 8: "The Psychology of Vision", section "Built-in Rules for Organizing Stimulus Elements into Wholes". It is clearly not a transcript.  Morton Shumway  —  talk  21:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This concept appears in every Psychology 100 textbook I've encountered as a instructor for that course. A fundamental idea in visual perception. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:24, 11 January 2011 (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.