Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social bonding and nurture kinship

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social bonding and nurture kinship[edit]

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

This is an article on a doctoral thesis written by the work's author. Although the author has recognized that there is a conflict of interest and is well-intending I am unsure this article is suitable for an encyclopedia. There appears to be quite a lot of synthesis WP:SYNTH as well as original research WP:OR and relies heavily on large quotations. France3470 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a copyright violation, I'm sure it could be deleted. Also, is there any notability established?Curb Chain (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sadly, although a well-written article, I did a good-faith Gsearch and couldn't really find any significant coverage on either the thesis or its author (whose article I also bundled here). Speaking of which, both articles were created by the doctor himself, so I am going to leave a message on his talk page. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess we kind of edit conflicted, eh?Curb Chain (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page the author make it quite clear he was aware of a conflict of interest, and the policy surrounding it, see Talk:Social bonding and nurture kinship. Although that doesn't make it preferable. In terms of notability, I am far out of my depth. I know nothing on the subject and can't really hazard a guess. From reading some of the author's talk page conversations, and a quick google search there is a chance the topic may be notable. It does though seems to be an area rather embedded in academia, my Google search has pulled up almost all essays and papers. France3470 (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maximilian Holland The discussion was speedily closed but my argument still stands: "WP:AUTO and does not seem to establish notability. Lots of people write thesises and get their PHD."Curb Chain (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what discussion you are referring to? I am not aware of any previous AFD nom. France3470 (talk) 04:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Nevermind, I now see it above. France3470 (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This one. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 06:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Social bonding and nurture kinship while interesting is a summary of the PhD thesis in question. Maximilian Holland doesn't meet WP:GNG. -- Samir 04:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking an interest in this entry and the responsible manner in which you are handling it. I hope I might clarify a few issues that have been raised. The article provides a summary of the thesis; there is no original work (or synthesis work) in the article itself, it is merely a summary of the (published, peer-reviewed) work, in much the same way that other wikipedia articles pertaining to published work provide a summary of the ideas, and snippets from the content. Of course that doesn't establish notability. As far as published work goes, it is not yet 'well known' but is notable in the sense of 'significant', which I felt was in keeping with the notability guideline "Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below." Having said that, the thesis did make the top five in a journal on the SSRN network a couple of months ago (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/topten/topTenResults.cfm?groupingId=1239622&netorjrnl=jrnl). I hope this helps a bit. Please share your thoughts. (excuse if I can't respond immediately, I'm in an odd time-zone)Maximilianholland (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to see Maximilian Holland deleted - I would have done this myself, but I didn't know how. I didn't intend to create that article myself, at the time it had appeared to me that someone else had created it, so I filled in some details (there's a discussion on y talk page about it). I would nevertheless argue that the social bonding and nurture kinship page is of merit, but of course I defer to the community.Maximilianholland (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilianholland, I find it hard to believe that you did not create Maximilian Holland, when this diff proves that you did.Curb Chain (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that he said "I didn't intend to create that article" (emphasis added), not "I didn't create that article". At any rate, I have tagged Maximilian Holland for G7 in light of the above comment. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Maximilian Holland page has been speedily deleted per request. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Delete Maximilian Holland per author's request. Delete thesis article for lack of notability. As Wikipedia editors we can't independently decide what is "significant" enough for an article. We need secondary sources commenting. If the actual thesis itself (and not just some of the ideas discussed in the thesis) was notable per WP:NOTE I'd expect to see external reliable sources used in the "Reception" section. Cloveapple (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human bonding, Nature versus nurture and/or other fitting Wikipedia article. Doctoral thesis without citations have not "independent coverage" so they don't merit a whole article, but they're peer-reviewed so its content can be used to illustrate their main topic. Remove all details and add one or two paragraphs at those articles which are relevant, explaining the main ideas of your thesis. Diego Moya (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve, either by userfying, or by moving it to a subpage of Talk:Human bonding. As currently framed, it is about a thesis that probably lacks notability in itself. The sourced information described in the article could be used to improve main articles. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 3 June 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.