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. WP:V is policy and this content is completely unsourced. Besides, the original creator wrote a new and apparently better article, so I suppose nobody is sorry to wave this stub goodbye? Any redirect is an editorial decision.  Sandstein  19:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Perspective (cognitive) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NOTDIC. Merges a number of definitions together: context, reference, value system, and to a lesser extent: paradigm, point of view, reality tunnel, umwelt, world view. Previously deprodded Curb Chain ( talk) 18:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• speedy close Re-nominated by an abusive user (prev nominator was his sock: User:Algircal). While it is unreferenced, it is an article about an important concept, not about a word, i.e., NOTDIC is irrelevant. The text does not "merge" any definitions together: it defines one concept using references to other concepts. And "to the lesser extent" accusation holds no water: the text clearly says they are different. Of course, the article sucks per wikipedia standards (an unreferenced blurb), but this has never been a reason for deletion. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete - To be frank, the article currently appears to be a mishmash of concepts without coherency. This is the sort of postmodern word salad that Orwell railed against in Politics and the English Language, and I agree with him. Beyond that, we have no sources included here now, and I don't see how you can even add one for something so haphazard in the first place. CoffeeWithMarkets ( talk) 04:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment I cannot find anything to back up what that stub says anywhere. We do have an article called World_view that seems to be about something similar and is written to a much higher standard. I think this should be deleted for seemingly having some type of POV even though I'm not sure what it is (cynicism maybe) and being nearly incoherent but it could be redirected.-- Savonneux ( talk) 14:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • It appears to correspond to the following meaning of the word: "perspective: the state of one's ideas, the facts known to one, etc., in having a meaningful interrelationship". Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete:Keep A search on "cognitive perspective" brings up the concept within the field of cognitive psychology. See as examples [1], [2], [3]. There is some argument to be made that the stub could be expanded into cognitive psychology, but if so then a redirect should remain. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Follow up: Per discussion below, moved my text to new article, and as this one does appear to be gibberish and unclear what, if anything it is discussing other than cognitive perspective, I guess we probably do need to delete. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry to revert, but it seems that your text is about something different: cognitive perspective - i.e, a point of view onto something based on the theory of cognition. I.e., yours is a particular kind of perspective, Whereas the current "gibberish" is an attempt to define a very generic philosophical concept of "perspective". Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • PS. I was trying to look into the history where this mess originated from. The creator says he copied it from a disambig page. Since then the source page appears to be renamed a couple times and eventually [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perspective (viewpoint)|deleted]. So I guess maybe it made some sense back then, in 2004. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:36, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      • • So why is it called "cognitive"? I guess if you'd prefer, I can copy my changes to a new article. But I'd encourage a redirect after... Montanabw ^(talk) 21:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
          • It is not called "cognitive" It is a disambig qualifier, just like in Line (text file) does not mean that line is a kind of text file; it means "line" in the topics related to text files. Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
            • • OK< I can live with that. Created new article and changed !vote. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
          • P.S. Funny that you mentioned a redirect. After quickly looking into a couple of dictionaries, I was about to suggest to redirect tis page to point of view, only to find that it already redirects here :-) I guess we have a small "walled garden" :-) Staszek Lem ( talk) 21:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unreferenced since 2004. If someone adds just two in-depth references to this topic from reliable sources, I'll review this opinion, so please do ping me if that happens. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Hang on! I find it fairly clear that, as User:Staszek Lem has said, the article was created (back in 2004) by User:Altenmann to handle a generic philosophical/psychological meaning of perspective - fairly close in meaning to "point of view" as used in "neutral point of view". The article is classified by Wikiproject Philosophy as high-importance, and has over a hundred inward links from other articles (a number of them, admittedly, piped). Unfortunately, despite this, the article has scarcely changed since 2004, even though I suspect that User:Altenmann was creating it as a placeholder to be improved later by others. In practice, though, I suspect that philosophers tend to use the word "perspective" in passing but, in detailed discussion, prefer more precise synonyms, several of which are given in the article. Under the circumstances, straight deletion of the article would probably create at least as many problems as it solves - there is actually a fairly high chance that a Wikipedia reader currently arriving at it through one of the inward links, while not finding the article itself much use, then finds that one or other of the outward links is what they actually want. Redirection might work if a suitable target can be found ( World view looks possible but far from ideal). A WP:HEYMANN rewrite would be best, but I don't think I could do it so I am not expecting it of others. PWilkinson ( talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • (Got pinged here. Never kept it on my watchlist, so didn't see the discussion._ PWilkinson is right: Back in todler days of wikipedia I created placeholders for important philosophical concepts: perspective and POV. I expected someone to fill it in. I find it ridiculous that wikipedians use the terms POV/NPOV on a daily basis, yet the article is missing, and even more ridiculous claim of this AfD that there is no such thing. As I see the text of the article almost untouched. At the same time I am baffled that some think it is gibberish. When I saw this text, it made perfect sense to me (and still does), so I cut and pasted it unchanged. (and I claim no authorship credits). World view is close, but different concept. I vaguely remember I was looking for redirect targets, but I found none good. That said, my vote is "keep" because I made a quick google search and found several deeply philosophical texts treating specifically these concepts (i.e., not just mention them in passing). Of course all this philosophy sounds babble to me (philosophers have their own worldview and slang, even worse than lawyers :-), but I will try to rescue the article tomorrow, if no one beats me to that; I am used to writing articles on topics nobody cares (and I never heard before myself), such as ' animal latrine', ' Crimean journey of Catherine the Great', ' rubber soldiers', ' Hymylä', or ' Jewish nose' (well, the last one I sort of always heard around :-) So I guess this one will be an easy job as well. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:53, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: Well, if you "cut and pasted it unchanged" then we have a WP:COPYVIO problem too. In short, this needs a rewrite and some footnotes to have any hope of staying here. And it does need a plain language rewrite before going into the philosophical depths. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Why the heck it is copyvio? The attribution is clearly indicated in edit summary. As for "plain language", which part of the phrase "Perspective in theory of cognition is the choice of a context or a reference (or the result of this choice) from which to sense, categorize, measure or codify experience" you don't understand? - üser:Altenmann >t 17:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to " Point of view (philosophy)". As I promised, here you have a brand fresh new off-the-shelf undercooked but WP:RS-compliant ready to go article. Feel free to expand and destroy. (4 hours of my life. what a waste.) - üser:Altenmann >t 08:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oh, almost forgot: <ping-ping-ping> User:Montanabw, User:PWilkinson, User:Staszek Lem, User:Dweller, User:Savonneux. - üser:Altenmann >t 09:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • P.P.S. Does anybody care to nominate it for DYK. Suggested hook: "Did you know that you have a point of view regardless whether you know it or not?" :-) - üser:Altenmann >t 09:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Yeah that's good. I only commented though, didn't vote :P -- Savonneux ( talk) 09:30, 31 August 2015 (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.