Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybercognition

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--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cybercognition[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A total of five hits for the phrase "cybercognition" in google scholar - all to papers by the same author and repeating the same definition verbatim, suggests that this is not a notable topic. The article is mostly a copy of material form the article Umwelt [EDIT: Now the article has been rewritten to make it redundant with the article on Cybernetics, and entirely unsourced.] User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One of these articles actually has 100+ citations according to GScholar, but only mentions "cybercognition" once. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ashby is certainly notable, but the article avoids saying that he ever used ther term himself. If he did, then it would be possible to merge or redirect it. All that seems to be said is that it is based on the work of Ashby, which by itself means nothing with respect to notability. I may be wrong; I don't have his book at hand--if so, canwe have page numbers and quotations. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.