Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineering psychology

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. J04n(talk page) 05:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering psychology[edit]

Engineering psychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not demonstrate notability of the subject. This material is comprehensively covered by Ergonomics, Human factors and other articles. Development of this article has been abandoned. Dolphin (t) 03:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —I Jethrobot (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article does demonstrate the notability of the topic - it references an entire book about it. Here's an entry on the topic in a respectable encyclopedia to show what we might aspire to: Engineering Psychology. Warden (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Dream Focus 10:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is a good article; however, it is not Engineering psychology, the entire book used as a source is about human factors psychology. Perhaps this is the potato, potato debate. Nevertheless, despite the depth of the article, it is repetitious and covered in a different field of psychology. --Alexeink (talk) 21:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC) — Alexeink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Click the Google news archive link at the top of the AFD. Various government organizations have a department for it. Add in the word "university" to the search and you'll find mention of various universities that have a department dedicated to it. [1] Clearly notable if its taught in universities. Dream Focus 10:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's notable, and fine as a stub. Wxidea (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What Warden said.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ergonomics. While this article admirably begins with the negative definition "Engineering psychology is not the equivalent of ergonomics," looking at the references that are available online it, err, is the equivalent. I'm puzzled by several things here..
  • The External links to Master's in Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology was a very strange one, and did not conform to the guideline, so I've removed it.
  • Is "Division 21 of the American Psychological Association" a reliable source?
    • It's "about" page says "Website created by the Clemson University HFES Student Chapter."
    • There is the "Franklin V. Taylor Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Field of Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology." I picked one winner at random (2003) and saw th"Dr. Boehm-Davis has served as the President of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society and of Division 21 (Applied Experimental and Engineering Psychology) of the American Psychological Association." So I'm tempted right away to see this as the typical incestous interdeparmental rename-game that sadly is required to secure funding.
  • The next reference, Roscoe, S. N. (1997). The adolescence of engineering psychology, begins with "Engineering psychology is the science of human behavior in the operation of systems." While this is slightly more concise than the definition at the begining of our article on Ergonomics, "the study of designing equipment and devices that fit the human body, its movements, and its cognitive abilities" they are in affect, identical.
  • Finally, Engineering Psychology and Human Performance is an offline reference and I am unable to comment upon it directly. It's heavily cited but that tells us nothing about how it is differentiated from Ergonomics or human factors.
  • Even if that final tome turns out to be weighty indeed, it's a single book. Despite what was written above, having "an entire book" written about a subject is not the hurdle for inclusion.
Adding these all up, there does not exist "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to justify this as a stand-alone article.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot, but I have a fun game we can play. Let's count all the articles that appear indistinguishable from the current article:
Even if we were to redirect it, I'm not sure where. We might consider making this term a disambiguation page for this very reason. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 07:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the nay-sayers seem to have addressed the source which I cited above: The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology. This describes the various terms as "cognates" - related but different. For another scholarly discussion of the inter-relationship of these various topics, see Engineering Psychology. None of this amounts to a reason to delete. Rather it confirms that discussion of the relationship between these related fields of study is itself notable and so we should cover it. Warden (talk) 09:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It then goes on to state that "...differences among disciplines are often subtle, and professional in separate disciplines often conduct very similar work." Given that this article is simply a WP:DICTDEF, I would suggest that this is easily close enough for a redirect. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin - Due to an edit I simply cannot explain this had no header for a few hours. Please let it run a few extra hours past its due date to compensate. And thank you to Dolphin for letting me know. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The college class is called Engineering Psychology. It is taught in universities around the world. The article explains the difference between it and ergonomic. You can also see the dictionary definition of ergonomics. [2] Engineering things for a proper psychological effect on people, is different than simply making a really comfortable chair for them. Different things. The article could be expanded by someone who took the class and knows about it, to list examples of what's found in the textbooks they use. The history of it, how it is taught, notable people involved in it, etc. Dream Focus 13:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this is different from cognitive ergonomics (which is NOT "simply making a really comfortable chair"), how? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Start a merge discussion there and get some feedback from those that understand this. The proper name for the field is Engineering Psychology, since that is what they have been giving college degrees in for decades. Being taught in universities around the world makes this notable. If it is determined something else is similar, then a merge discussion separate from this AFD, with people knowledgeable about this subject participating, would be the proper way to proceed. Dream Focus 14:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i) I am not precluded from discussing a merger or (as the current article is nothing but a WP:DICTDEF) a redirect on an AfD. (ii) Last I checked, WP:Article titles did not privilege the names of college courses over other alternate titles for a topic (and even if it did, that'd be no reason not to allow cognitive ergonomics to WP:USURP this title). (iii) Being notable does not stop this article from being either a WP:NOT DICTDEF or a WP:CFORK -- both of which are valid issues to consider at an AfD.
I find nothing either compelling or praiseworthy in your basis-less demands that we curtail the discussion in this AfD to only the aspects of the article you wish to discuss. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If universities give degrees to people in Engineering Psychology, then surely there are college level textbooks written about it, proving it is notable. Google book search shows 26,100 results so its a bit much to sort through. Dream Focus 15:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few relevant guidelines to help...
  • WP:DICTDEF - Does not apply. A full article, even if a few paragraphs, will say much more than a dictionary definition. The article is not about the usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.
  • WP:DEMOLISH (Don't demolish the house while it's still being built) - applies. If this is a course, just because an editor is ignorant of the subject is no reason to remove it.
  • WP:BARE and WP:MINIMUM - Does not apply. The course is above the bare threshold for notability for a course or field of study or research.
  • WP:IDL - Applies. Dislike for an article is not sufficient to delete it.
  • WP:IS & WP:INDY - Applies. There are 3rd party sources.
  • WP:JNN - applies. Simply stating that a subject is not notable is not sufficient to get it deleted on this basis. The topic sounds very notable, including the thousands of google hits noted by User:DreamFocus
  • WP:OVERZEALOUS - Applies. The practice of "dying to" get an article deleted
  • WP:UGLY - Applies. Being poorly written is not grounds for deletion. The article could be improved considerably, as it says very little now.
  • WP:POTENTIAL - applies. Articles about new and multidisciplinary courses and fields of study are are useful for Wikipedia, and this article has room for improvement and cross linking to other wikipedia articles. This includes articles that differentiate between subtle-difference in fields like Engineering psychology and Cognitive engineering, and cognitive ergonomics, and cross-link the articles. They sound different, even if they have similarities. People in good faith would not add all these articles if they were all the same. Nuance has a place. If they are in fact exact synonyms, then a merger is appropriate. Wxidea (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:Complete bollocks:
  • The article is NOT "a few paragraphs" it is a SINGLE paragraph that does NO MORE than SIMPLY DEFINE "Engineering psychology". It is a WP:DICTDEF.
  • The article is currently nearly SIX YEARS OLD. When can we expect a second paragraph and some not-purely-definitional material? The 22nd century? Claiming that the article is still in the process of "being built" and that WP:DEMOLISH applies (more than it would apply to any article under AfD) is a heroic stretch.
  • "WP:BARE and WP:MINIMUM" are the one and same thing, so I don't see why Wxidea feels it necessary to mention them twice -- and as NOBODY ELSE brought them up, I don't see why Wxidea feels it necessary to mention them (only to state that they don't apply) at all.
  • An unsubstantiated and vague claim of WP:IDL is simply WP:Assume bad faith.
  • Again "WP:IS" IS "WP:INDY" -- and nobody is arguing lack of third party sourcing.
  • Nobody has argued that the topic is "just not notable", no Wxidea, WP:JNN DOES NOT apply. Try to read an AfD's comments before making utterly irrelevant complaints! (WP:Assume bad faith, strike two)
  • Nominating a six-year-old, purely-definitional single-paragraph article is hardly WP:OVERZEALOUS. If the nominator was "'dying to' get an article deleted", they'd be long-dead by now.
  • WP:UGLY does not apply, as there quite simply isn't enough there to be "ugly" or pretty -- and in any case, nobody's making that argument -- you're simply assuming that they're thinking it. (WP:Assume bad faith, strike three -- YOU'RE OUT)
  • As for WP:POTENTIAL (i) there is so little there already that rebuilding from scratch is no great problem, (ii) after six years, there does not seem to be much likelihood that anything further will be done anytime soon & (iii) in any case this topic (or one indistinguishable to the layman) has already fulfilled its 'potential' at cognitive ergonomics. I would therefore suggest a pragmatic and realistic view of WP:POTENTIAL.
  • And finally, I would point out that in and among all these irrelevancies and tangential guidelines, Wxidea has ignored the elephant in the room, the argument that WP:CFORK applies.
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would point out that this AfD is already more than ten times the size of the article, in spite of the fact that the article has been in existence for 400 times as long. I would therefore suggest that we simply go ahead and delete/redirect the blasted thing and not bother wasting any more time on it (with an RfC and further disproportionate discussion) unless and until somebody can actually be bothered to come up with some non-definitional content, which clearly distinguishes it from cognitive ergonomics. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and RfC I agree with Hrafn's rebuttals above. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 07:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An RfC may indeed be appropriate on the issue of which out of 'Engineering psychology', 'Cognitive ergonomics' & 'Cognitive engineering' is the more appropriate alternate title for this general topic area (unless and until there is sufficient material and clarity to separate them out). I suspect however that nobody will care much (I must admit that I don't). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: on the subject of 'there are university courses with this title so there should be an article with this title' I would point out that I've seen the subject of 'Computer programming and Computer algorithms' taught under the title of 'Computer science', 'Information science' and 'Software engineering'. Whilst I am perfectly certain that somebody can find a schema for differentiating these 'topics' (and most probably a dozen others then come forth to argue for alternate, conflicting schemas likewise differentiating them), I see no problem with putting them all together under the same title unless and until there is (i) sufficient content to support multiple articles (ii) a clear, sourced articulation as to the difference between the sub-topics. I therefore reiterate my opinion that there is no reason not to redirect this article as a {{R from alternative name}} until such substantive content and sourced-differentiation exists. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An RFC might be appropriate, but that it not the issue here. Warden makes a good point that another encyclopedia lists the subject. I am not swayed by the notion that the existence of uni level courses established notability, as such are not part of WP:RS. I am swayed by the following:
There is/was a Journal of Engineering Psychology
A book: Howell, William Carl. Engineering psychology; current perspectives in research (New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts [1971])
Another book: Wickens, Christopher D. Engineering psychology and human performance (Columbus : Merrill, 1984)
Also, I note that the ergonomics article suggests that a separate article may be warranted, characterizing Engineering psychology as a field of Ergnomics: "Engineering psychology is an interdisciplinary part of ergonomics and studies the relationships of people to machines, with the intent of improving such relationships" and "Engineering psychology is an applied field of psychology concerned with psychological factors in the design and use of equipment". In regard to Hrafn's comment up top that this is a dictionary definition and that the article hasn't been worked on recently, these strike me as cleanup issues not related to this AFD. Finally, that "...differences among disciplines are often subtle, and professional in separate disciplines often conduct very similar work" is no surprise to anyone with an academic background. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would point out that I pointed out the article's age, not as part of my recommendation to delete/redirect, but only in response to Wxidea's baseless accusations of WP:DEMOLISH & WP:OVERZEALOUS and their invocation of WP:POTENTIAL. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I started a small section in the article differentiating the two. Maybe you can expand it if you have a few minutes. Wxidea (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a few sentences differentiating this from applied cognitive psychology based on the Stanton article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line 15:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in attempting to differentiate this topic from Cognitive ergonomics (CE), the article now states that "this topic is about the science of human behaviour and capability in terms of how it affects design and operation of systems." Unfortunately over at CE it states its goals to include using "emerging branch of ergonomics that places particular emphasis on the analysis of cognitive processes" to enhance "user-centered design of human-machine interaction and human-computer interaction" & "design of information technology systems that support cognitive tasks". How does that not involve using "the science of human behaviour and capability" to affect "design and systems"? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I'm not understanding. The question before us is whether an article on this topic can be sourced, and apparently, it can. The sources should be our guide on dealing with the specific content of a given article, and your question strikes me as a good one for the article's talk page, but not here. Am I missing something? --Nuujinn (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't understanding. AfDs can evaluate a number of questions. A question that has been raised in this AfD is that of whether this topic is a WP:CFORK of Cognitive ergonomics. This is a germane topic for discussion on an AfD, so NO I WILL NOT TAKE IT TO THE ARTICLE'S TALKPAGE And you and DreamFocus can ruddy well STOP asking me to do so. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, calm down and have a cup of tea, there is no need to shout.
I don't think it's a fork, I think this is an example, one of many, where a field of study overlaps with others. Such overlap is very common in interdisciplinary subjects, such as Literary Theory and Comparative Literature. Not being an expert, I'm relying to some degree on my intuition, but to a large degree on the fact that independent and reliable sources cover this subject, regardless of that overlap. Now, if you have sources that say that this topic is the same thing as Cognitive ergonomics, by all means bring them here, otherwise, I'll simply stand by my !vote, as it seems to me that simple fact that some sources use the one term and others the other suggest there is a distinction, either historical, political, or in differences in what the terms mean precisely. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I get repeatedly told to take germane discussion off an AfD, and get a host of wild accusations flung in my general direction (Wxidea 04:06, 2 July 2011), I tend to start to get a tad irritable. The problem with your argument is that (i) 'Overlap' is explicitly a criterion for a WP:MERGE & (ii) nobody has, as yet, demonstrated that there is any non-overlapping 'field of study' (let alone a significant amount of non-overlapping topic area, such as would warrant a second article). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Warden references a tertiary source which makes the distinction, and we can use tertiary sources for a broad overview. Overlap is a criterion of merge, but I have not yet seen any sources addressing that issue directly. And in terms of Wxidea 04:06, 2 July 2011, I ask you, what "host of wild accusations"? I see a list of links to guidelines and policies (which I largely think are irrelevant to this discussion, or at least no more relevant than the length of the article in its current form compared to this discussion, or the length of time the article has existed, or the length of these discussions, I might add), but no accusations. As for the problem you see with my argument, the problem I see with your argument is that WP:MERGE is neither a guideline nor a policy, and overlap is a "reason" for merging two article, not an argument for why an article should be deleted, and I think the source Warden presented suggested they may be reasons for separate articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i) "Warden references a tertiary source which states that "...differences among disciplines are often subtle, and professional in separate disciplines often conduct very similar work" and does not explicitly state what the difference between these fields is. (ii) WP:DEMOLISH, WP:IDL, WP:JNN, WP:OVERZEALOUS, WP:UGLY -- accusations of misconduct or making illegitimate arguments. (iii) That there is a "good reason" to merge is an argument for merging. You're just playing semantics. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i. No, it doesn't, but it does say "Cognates of engineering psychology include human factors, ergonomics, applied experimental psychology, and cognative engineering. All have the common goal of improving socio-technical systems, but each does so with a different approach...", which underscores that they are different enough to distinguish, in any overview, ii., no, those were references to policies and guidelines and essays, and it is standard procedure to point to such in a civil manner as a way of asking editors to think about what they are saying. I don't think those particular ones are helpful to the discussion, but I think that taking those as accusations is a bit too much. However, if you feel attacked, please bring it up somewhere else, because it's not appropriate here, and iii., I'm not playing, but yes, this is a discussion about what terms mean, so I accept semantics as an accurate characterization. But take a look at 1, 2 (in which Hendrick asserts that cognative ergonomics sprung from software design on page 38, and in which Zionchenko and Munipov point to roots of Engineering psychology to cockpit design in the 1940s), and 3, which describes the two as "symbiotic fields" and underscores that there is disagreement as to the degree of overlap and orientation and whether or not there is a distinction, and 4, which suggest that cognative ergonomics may be unnecessary in light of psychological engineering and other similar fields. So there is a lot of variety in how the fields are viewed, with some suggesting there is no real distinction, and others suggesting significant differences, and all of which are nice reliable academic sources. Certainly it seems to me that we can have a decent article on this subject, as there are a large number of sources that use the term and there is a disagreement to document. It may turn out that a merge is appropriate, but that's something that should be discussed after doing some research at leisure, rather than under the gun of AFD. A simple "let's just merge them and have lunch" seems clearly inappropriate to me, but that's just my opinon. An' that's all I have to say about that riht now. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Pervasive and tendentious WP:Wikilawyering, and a complete failure to distinguish Engineering psychology from Cognitive ergonomics (as opposed to the mere assertion that a distinction exists). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  There is no dispute that the topic, "Engineering Psychology", is notable.  There is no dispute that there is material that is encyclopedic.  The learned argument that the material is or could be or should be covered under other topics is beyond the scope of this AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Engineering_psychology&oldid=1088728216"