This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sam Sailor (talk | contribs) at 13:50, 24 September 2015 (Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Practopoiesis (2nd nomination)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:50, 24 September 2015 by Sam Sailor (talk | contribs) (Relisting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Practopoiesis (2nd nomination))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Practopoiesis
AfDs for this article:- Practopoiesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only source cited is one of the main authors of the article itself. No evidence of significance of this term. Previously deleted for precisely the same problems. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Delete and Userfy - There are some references out there, such as this, this, this (although you have to buy he abstract), this (although this organization seems to be somehow affiliated with the creator of this concept), and this. News returned 3 other sources, but they were all by the creator of this concept, Danko Nikolic. Not quite notable enough yet. Onel5969 02:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment might be worth moving contents to a subsection of a newly-created BLP-article called Draft:Danko Nikolić. Author has some not too shabby cite-counts, and has published in several of the List_of_biology_journals#Neuroscience bluelinks.
| dozen papers 2006-2011 with 42+ cites, was co-author#2 of 2007 paper with 669 cites. |
|---|
|
- Alternatively, could merge into the downward causation parent-topic (that one has more refs -- but overall has similar WP:OWN issues to this Practopoiesis article under discussion -- prolly AfD'ing sequentially one at a time is best for the peace of mind of all concerned since merges can be accomplished in the interim). Double-merging both the Practopoiesis and the DownwardCausation articles into some grandparent-article, which I assume(?) might be neural synchronization from the cite-list above, might be WP:UNDUE or might be WP:NOTEWORTHY, not sure about that idea -- perhaps they fit better at computational neuroscience?
- Alternatively-alternatively, perhaps side-merge the Practopoiesis and the DownwardCausation articles, intto a new subsection of the Max Planck Institute for Brain Research home-facility of the research-group? This school-article needs significant help at the moment (tagged for adding refs and details and COI), so as a bonus, that would get somebody knowledgeable about the facility involved on that article's talkpage, where perhaps User:Dankonikolic will shift from WP:SPIP to school-pride? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Repurpose to a draft article on the author, as proposed above. A merge into the institute where the work was done is undue weight, unless we expand that article to include every ever done there. A merge into the computation neuroscience article is also excessive weight at this point, unless we include every hypothesis there that has ever been published. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC) .
- Redirect to Downward causation, which was what I did when I created this iteration of the article, to address the problem of various redlinks to the topic. It has since had a bunch of content added from IP editors and from the originator of the idea. A sentence or two explaining the term maybe could be added to the Downward causation article, but I don't see that it is a sufficiently well-established concept to merit an article of its own. DaveApter (talk) 08:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- I know I don't have much say in the destiny of the article, so I will not make any suggestions. It will be how you collectively decide. I would just like to provide a few technical facts in order to help the decision. i) Although much of my work is on neural synchronization, practopoiesis does not have a direct link to that topic. It would be a mistake to merge those. ii) Similarly, Downward Causation has nothing directly related to neural synchronization either. iii) Also, it would not make sense to add practopoiesis to Max Planck page exactly for the reasons that DGG stated. iv) I am not affiliated with ieet.org. It just happened so that their editor(s) like practopoiesis. v) Finally, I would like to state that, if I can, I'd be glad to help any solution that you come up with (and doesn't involve complete deletion of the contents of practopoiesis from Misplaced Pages) if such help is asked for and somehow magically does not put me in COI. Thank you all for your time and effort. (Danko (talk) 13:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC))
- Well, if you need to be asked, I'm asking. :-) Please make concrete suggestions, and please help us organize these concepts 'properly'. Suggestions on talkpages and AfD discussions and other non-mainspace pages are always okay, generally speaking, as long as the potential-COI is stated up-front -- you won't get magically into COI-territory, unless you start inserting stuff yourself into mainspace, which gives the appearance of SEO for your name and/or your institution and/or your inventions. Suggestions are fine, the more concrete the better. There are two problems to be solved here at AfD: first of all, these are hard concepts to understand ('practopoiesis' is a neologism compared to 'color' or even to 'qualia'), and thus it isn't easy for non-experts to figure out WHERE the topic best fits into the encyclopedia. Second of all, WP:SOURCES always help...
| some questions for User:Dankonikolic, which I'll collapse, since although the *answers* are relevant to this AfD, the question-texts are not that AfD-crucial |
|---|
|
User:Dankonikolic, as you noted in your comment at the first AfD of practopoiesis, the way that wikipedia justifies a dedicated-standalone-article about the topic of practopoiesis (or any other topic) is usually based on WP:42 aka "lots of other people independent from the topic publishing stuff about the topic in some reasonable amount of depth". Practopoiesis has some sources, but there are concerns that WP:PSCOI ... which I will note is *extremely* distinct from everyday-english-usage of the phrase 'conflict of interest' but that the wiki-jargon-definitions cannot much be helped ... makes several of the sources in the practopoiesis article right now, less-than-fully-independent. That doesn't mean such less-than-fully-independent sources cannot be USED in the article, it just means they don't count as fully towards demonstrating wiki-notability aka WP:N (again: little relation to real-world-notability) and passing WP:42. So to get to brass tacks, here is specifically what I ask, here at this AfD, which is a decision about whether to:
The *best* way that you can help... which will help improve wikipedia regardless of whether outcome userfy#1/bangmerge#2/bangkeep#3 ends up happening... is to dig up some WP:SOURCES which are written by authors besides yourself (ideally ones not from Max Planck but this is just optimality), in some kind of wiki-reliable publication (see typical list at WP:SOURCES and WP:SCHOLARSHIP) which specifically devote multiple paragraphs to discussing the concept of practopoiesis-by-that-name (ideally in the piece-title but this is again not really required). If there are enough such sources, then bangkeep#3 is the likely result; if there are not, then bangmerge is the likely result. Therefore, the *next* best thing you can help us with, is by giving us the correct ontological position, of the practopoiesis concept. For instance, the correct ontological position of the technical topic Appaloosa (the horse breed) is something like this: physical thing > animal > mammal > horse > breed > domesticated > Appaloosa. This is just a very-rough example to give you an idea what I'm asking for, don't feel constrained to follow my not-very-optimal example pattern, just give us the *right* ontological parent for practopoiesis-the-encyclopedic-concept. Also, in addition to a nice aristotelian chain starting at animal/mineral/vegetable/intangible, and ending up with the parent-of-practopoiesis followed by the-concept-of-practopoiesis, please also explain the "siblings" of practopoiesis. In the horse example, it would be wrong to up-merge Appaloosa into the Tennessee_Walking_Horse article, because they are both different domesticated horse-breeds (aka sibling-relationship not parent-child). In particular, is downward causation the parent, or sibling, or cousin, of practopoiesis? Finally, besides the parents (most likely bangmerge-target) and siblings (most likely incorrect targets), what are the uncles and aunts (again these are close-but-no-banana incorrrect bangmerge-targets), and grandparents (ditto), of practopoiesis, in terms of what the likely readership of the article would expect to be the case? That is how the bangmerge (if we end up doing that), ought to be decided, methinks -- on the conceptual organization of topics, that the interested readership will find most logical. |
- In a nutshell, please tell us what the correct conceptual-parent of the practopoiesis-concept, actually is. Because quite frankly, I don't understand the concept, I've only just heard of it, and briefly skimmed the article. My quick-skim suggestion of bangmerging into downward causation was based purely on edit-history, maybe ideasthesia is a better ontological parent? Or maybe synesthesia but that is probably a great-grandparent. But I'd really prefer that *you* tell us, rather than me guesstimating. ;-)
- My other concrete suggestions, for side-merging to a BLP-article about the initiator of the practopoiesis-neologism, or even to the University-article (aka the "corporation" that sponsored the "manufacturing" of the "product" called practopoiesis) should be considered half-assed fallback measures, which are only necessary iff we cannot figure out the proper conceptual-parent-article. Those non-ontological bangmerge options could still occur, of course, and in cases where WP:UNDUE or other such issues play a role, are not uncommon compromise-measures. But as DGG points out, there is definitely a question of WP:UNDUE for the institute, and there is a pragmatic difficulty that we do not currently have an article Danko Nikolić where we could create the new subsection Danko Nikolić#practopoiesis.
- Anyways, please User:dankonikolic, although it is very wiki-honourable of you to be willing to stand back, and let your fellow wikipedians pull the wiki-trigger on this AfD decision, I do ask that you please lend us a helping hand, in the form of concrete suggestions of what the Best Thing To Do would actually be... especially if you see, that we are about to pull the wiki-trigger, and blast a hole in our collective wiki-foot. :-) Please feel free to leave a note on my user_talk, if what I'm asking is unclear, or if you have questions generally speaking about all this stuff. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor 13:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Categories: