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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Information Processing (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)

This appears to have slumbered peacefully in its orphan reclusion for several years now, but it's actually a somewhat surprising usurpation. The article is not about cognitive information processing (whatever the particulars of that may be) at all, it is about a particular application developed in one work group. The references are a beautiful walled garden: the same three names in rotation. And from my searches, this group's output is the entirety of coverage that approach has gotten so far. Assuming that there is a general subject such as cognitive information processing (and there seems to be), we don't have an article on that at the moment; we have a work group's private progress report on their application method.

I suggest redirecting to Cognitive science or a more suitable candidate until someome writes an article about the actual topic. Eeven if consensus should be that the current content is actually notable, it should at least be renamed to Cognitive information processing approach to career development and services and Cognitive Information Processing should be redirected, so that readers don't get the impression that this is what is meant by the term. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to think that the material is notable. Career Choice and Development references the work of the Florida State group both in the bibliography and againfrequently in running text. The author, Duane Brown, is professor of education at the University of North Carolina and appears to be independent of the Florida State group. Likewise, Applying Career Development Theory to Counseling discusses the approach in detail. Peterson (one of the Florida State authors) is named as a central figure and the book author again appears to be independent (his affiliation is given as the University of Delaware). On that basis, I say keep. I think Elmidae's suggested rename is awful, and one can understand why the article author abbreviated it, but for the sake of clarity, it needs to be done – I don't have a better suggestion. SpinningSpark 21:18, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteWho cares: The "material" does appear to be vacuous in the extreme. Exposition: "CIP theory asserts that the major components involved in determining career decision-making and problem-solving effectiveness are the content and process of career decisions." Name a human enterprise which cannot be substituted for "career decision-making" for which this is not true (try "nuclear power station design" or "making a souffle"). Name a human activity for which the "recipe" metaphor is invalid: you need to know the ingredients and what to do with them. I do not think any person with a working brain would be misled by this article into thinking they were missing anything. And if deleted, something similar will pop up to fill its place. Imaginatorium (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with Spinning - seems to be a valid concept -article needs to be improved and have its title changed as per Elmidae's suggestion.... not deleted. Checking Google Scholar, there are 16,800 hits. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deathlibrarian - you may be mixing up the many hits on the topic that this article is not actually covering[1] with considerations about notability of what the article is actually covering[2] (i.e. one single application method). There certainly aren't 16k hits for the latter (rather, 7). Can you clarify - keep current content at current name, or move to more accurate name and write article about actual topic? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Elmidae I blundered into that, without reading the previous posts well enouhg. Yes, I can see they are speaking specifically about thos concept in the career context. I think, in terms of being more meaningful, I agree with Spinning Keep and rename to Elmidae's suggested title, so that it differentiates from the more general phrase. Article can then be improved. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2018 (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.