Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecological cognition

Ecological cognition

I propose to delete this article. A google search for "ecological cognition" does not bring up any references to this guy bishop (other than his own webpage). Ecological psychology is an important branch of psychology, and there are centers devoted to it (e.g. CESPA at the university of connecticut). Ecological psychology has much to say on the subject of cognition. What is this fellow saying that has not been said by the 50 year old community of ecological psychologists, that is so important that we need a whole new "branch of cognitive psychology"?

I suspect that this article has been written by Bishop himself. What he says does seem to be related to ecological psychology, but rather superficially. You cannot just coin some phrase and then put an article up on wikipedia suggesting that you have invented a disicpline!! To make that claim, you need to have a large body of publications, and several researchers other than yourself using your ideas. This guy graduated a couple of years ago (not in psychology, neuroscience or cognitive science I might add) and has knocked together a couple of papers on E-learning. From this we are expected to regard his body of work as a discipline comparable to ecological psychology. This is the kind of stuff that puts wikipedia into disrepute.

Duracell 19:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep The work of Kyttä and Bishop on ecological cognition are both highly credible. Kyttä's work was accepted for a PhD and Bishop's was accepted on a conference on Post Cognitivist Psychology. Bishop is known to be writing on ecological cognition for journals with high impact factors and a book to be published by Oxford University Press. WelshAspie 13:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Non notable - very few non-Wikipedia Google hits. [1] Blackcats 17:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Since when has Google been the source for what's coming out of academia? Besides, the ecological cognition page existed long before Duracell joined Wikipedia, so what gives him the right to ask for content to be deleted? Wikipedia should restrict VfD to users that have been in the community a long time to prevent abuse of it like we are seeing from Duracell --Cardydwen 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)