Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary psychoanalysis


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 04:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychoanalysis
Violates WP:OR, WP:V, and possibly WP:VAIN. According to the article, the term was apparently coined by Daniel Kriegman. According to the article's talk page, User:Kriegman admits to creating the article and being Daniel Kriegman. Medtopic 08:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but... - Another gem by the founder of Yoism! User:24.34.73.163 has helped round this one out some in the name of NPOV, although I'm not sure of his/her background and how much "balancing" really occured. In any case, my inclination would be to tag this with a notice that the content needs to be supported by citations that are not Kriegman's alone to avoid the WP:OR and WP:V traps. To me, the image of his book is vain and should go, but being a principal scholar of the theory doesn't necessarily exclude him from writing the article. I think there needs to be some serious work done, but I wouldn't recommend deletion just yet. If that's the consensus though, at least userfy it.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 09:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and also as advertising, since the only source cited is promotion for a book. No evidence is presented that any of the concepts described have any degree of acceptance, or have even been mentioned by a reliable source (outside of that single book). Dpbsmith (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There needs to be some evidence of professional recognition of his theory, as in peer-reviewed journals in his field, objective third party citations etc. as stated in WP:V and WP:PROF. Otherwise it is WP:OR which Wikipedia, to maintain credibility, is seeking to exclude. Mattisse 17:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article is notable, as it describes a theory concerning which Daniel Kriegman has published papers in peer-reviewed journals. The article could easily be brought into conformance with Verifiability and WP:NOR by adding the citations to the relevant research referenced in Daniel_Kriegman.  Note that the term "evolutionary psychoanalysis" never appears in the list of published articles -- however, articles such as the one cited below apparently relate to the theory described in the article. The article might need some adjustment to bring it into conformance with WP:NPOV, but that, by itself, does not justify deletion. "Kriegman, D. (1990). Compassion and altruism in psychoanalytic theory: An evolutionary analysis of self psychology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 18, 2, 342-367" (I have not yet verified this reference, which I am quoting from Daniel_Kriegman). John254 00:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can verify that the above reference exists in PsycINFO. --FreelanceWizard 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep While it is true that I am a cofounder of the term/theory and also created the article, it should be noted that I created it back before I understood that it might be seen as self-promotion and thus improper. My current understanding is that the creator of ideas can contribute to articles about them, but that they need to be circumspect in their contributions (which I wasn't, in this case).  In any case, there are inumerable references in the psychoanalytic literature to this perspective.  As evidence, consider the book  Theories in Psychoanalysis published in 1998 by the main psychoanalytic book publisher, International Universities Press, and edited by the well-known analyst, Robert Langs.  There were a dozen chapters in the book, each about a different major psychoanalytic perspective.  One of the chapters solicited for the book was "An evolutionary biological perspective on psychoanalysis" written by myself and Mal Slavin.  If this is insufficient, please let me know and I will provide dozens of published references to this viewpoint by independent psychoanalysts. Kriegman 13:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - No one is doubting that there are boundless writings about various forms or theories of psychoanalysis, evolutionary psychoanalysis included, and written by well known people, but your name does not appear in either of the above two references. Mattisse 14:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, if by "your name" you meant "Kriegman," I do not understand this comment as my name was in both the reference above. If you meant "evolutionary psychoanalysis," then note that above you wrote, "There needs to be some evidence of professional recognition of his theory ..."  When people recognize this perspective/theory/approach they may refer to it as "the evolutionary perspective on psychoanalysis formulated by Slavin & Kriegman," or "Slavin & Kriegman's evolutionary psychoanalytic perspective," etc.  I can provide numerous such examples from published, peer reviewed literature if the example I gave above is insufficient.  It is clear from the context---e.g., selecting the perspective for inclusion in a book surveying "theories in psychoanalysis"---that it is being recognized as a coherent, specific psychoanalytic viewpoint/theory.  If the name is the problem for others as well, then I would recommend changing the name of the article to "Evolutionary Perspective on Psychoanalysis," or something like that (though I do think that is more awkward).  The issue you raised above (evidence of professional recognition . . . in peer reviewed journals) can be easily remedied; if more evidence is needed, just let me know.  That issue should not be conflated with the issue of the title of the article, which can be changed, if necessary.Kriegman 15:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Mattisse 16:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply to above comment - I did a search on both of the web pages you referenced above and your name is not on them. I also looked at the references in your article:
 * One goes to a personal web page "Maintained by Francis F. Steen, Communication Studies, University of California Los Angeles". I have worked at universities and you can maintain personal web pages on their servers if you are a staff member. And Communication Studies is your field?
 * Second one goes to the personal web page of Robert D  Stolorow, Ph.D. and does not mention you.
 * Third one goes to Harvard University Press catalog and does not mention you
 * Fourth one goes to Paul & Anna Ornstein's personal web page and does not mention you.
 * Reply to Reply - I don't understand the first part of your reply about the two web pages I referenced above. While I erroneously said they both contained references to evolutionary psychoanalysis (corrected above), what I meant to say was that they both clearly support the point I was making.  One does list my name, two times:  "Slavin and Kriegman provide an evolutionary perspective on psychoanalysis" and "Table of Contents … 11. An Evolutionary Biological Perspective on Psychoanalysis Malcolm Owen Slavin, Daniel Kriegman."  The other was not about evolutionary psychoanalysis; it was a link to show that the publisher (IUP) was a major force in psychoanalytic publishing.  Just so, all four links that you note do not contain references to me or evolutionary psychology were NOT presented as verifying the importance of the evolutionary psychoanalysis.  Rather, they were external links showing who some of the folks were who were commenting on evolutionary psychoanalysis (other commentators have Wikipedia articles identifying them, which were linked to).  The comments from the folks (whom the external links were just identifying) came from promotional material for the book and are printed on the book itself.  I do understand that such material may not be considered sufficiently objective to support the article.  As I noted, I can provide innumerable quotations from these and other authors in published, peer reviewed (i.e., non-promotional) works to supplement (or replace) the quotations I originally put in the article.  However, that would involve my becoming involved in major re-editing of the article, which is something that I have been trying to avoid since I learned that my involvement was considered inappropriate.  I can provide peer reviewed references and quotations so that someone else can place them in the article, if that is more appropriate. Kriegman 17:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Delete or move to the title of the book and rework to become a page about Kriegman's book. One book does not a trend make. JFW | T@lk  06:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - JFW, that's true. But what about the recognition demonstrated by its inclusion in the book Theories of Psychoanalysis and the innumerable references I have offered to provide from the major, peer reviewed, psychoanalytic journals of it being referred to as a specific theoretical viewpoint? My ego aside (OK, that's something not so easily done ;-), there is simply ample evidence that this viewpoint (which, in addition to the book, is presented in more than 50 published papers by myself and Malcolm Slavin in those major, peer reviewed psychoanalytic journals) has achieved recognition as a psychoanalytic perspective.  Kriegman 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

style="color: rgb(255, 102, 0);"> Curtis talk+contributions 14:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fully POV and OR per above. This is a relist and still nothing is sourced? SynergeticMaggot 18:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per nomination. psych-o-cruft. --HResearcher 21:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - POV and original research. --Core des at talk. ^_^ 06:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice to recreation unless sourced -- on the page, mind you, as per WP:REF, and not in offers of lists of publications. Keep and cleanup otherwise. I searched PsycINFO and found several peer-reviewed articles and book chapters by Kriegman and others, some of which do indeed talk about this topic. A search for evolutionary psychoanalysis reveals some peer-reviewed articles and chapters by others (Smith, D. L. 1999; Gilbert, P. & Bailey, K. G., 2000). So, it does appear to have recognition in the psychoanalytic literature. Discussions on whether psychoanalysis is valid aside, I think this article if properly sourced is appropriate to keep, though its tone and possibly self-promoting nature probably aren't. With sources including some that don't involve the author cited (which I'm not going to fetch more than I have, not being a fan of psychoanalysis ;) ), this article could be kept and cleaned up. Otherwise, it probably needs to be deleted without prejudice to recreation and started over. Just to clarify, to me (as a psychologist), if all the papers involving a field come from the same set of people, and those are the same people writing it up for Wikipedia, it screams self-promotion of a concept that's possibly failed in the literature. If other people are writing articles on the theory that can be cited, however, it supports the claim that the theory is getting real support. --FreelanceWizard 09:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as proposal. michael <span
 * Delete per nom. Article created by one author and sourced to one book by that author. As noted by FreelanceWizard, no prejudice to re-creation if sources other than Kriegman are cited that clearly show that the theory is widely considered to be important. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and research by FreelanceWizard. Bwithh 02:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.