Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/THOMAS (neuroscience)


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

THOMAS (neuroscience)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article is a combination of a non-notable blog theory by Paul J. Zak on "The Human Oxytocin Mediated Attachment System" as the basis of a con, and a large variety of points which are about oxytocin but not about "THOMAS"Rumping (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professorpotter (talk • contribs) 23:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I am just learning how to sign comments.. :-)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
 * Comment - The article has a large number of reliable "sources", but it seems the vast majority do not refer to the theory in question. At the moment, I don't have easy access. It would be very helpful if someone who does could weed out the off-topic sources (i.e. those that do not refer to "THOMAS"). Please note: this article was created by a WP:SPA (Jerojasro) with major contributions by another SPA (Justin_Tsay). Paul J. Zak was also created by yet another SPA (with the interesting name "Zakp"). Major contributors there include two more SPAs (Iamamos andCNS2010). At the very least, both articles will need a good bit of attention. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Justin Tsay is one of my Neuroscience students, who created the article after a semester of research. I can vouch that he is in no way related to Paul Zak and has no particular conflicting interest in THOMAS. Just because a cited article does not explicitly mention THOMAS is not a reason to exclude it from the References. Many WP articles need supporting material from a variety of sources. - Professorpotter (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC) Professorpotter (talk) 23:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The origin of the article is not the reason for the deletion call here. Rather, the theory does not seem to be notable. The variety of sources that do not discuss the theory are of no use to us in this discussion as they do not demonstrate that the theory is notable. Those sources might be useful elsewhere (outside of Wikipedia) to explain or defend the theory. That is not, however, appropriate for a Wikipedia article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. The term does not show up on a PubMed search. The last reference says it all: "Personal Interview with Justin Tsay".Novangelis (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research. Not an established or notable term. I could not find this acronym or its constituent parts at PubMed, so apparently the theory has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Of the references provided, the only one that even mentions THOMAS is a Huffington Post blog by (who else?) Paul J. Zak. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Here's the problem with this article. It is a construction not used by people in the field. It is not something found in the peer-reviewed literature and many of the claims made in the article are not supportable. If those are removed, you are left with connections between oxytocin and social behavior that are well-known and are present in the oxytocin article itself. No need to create a separate redundant account. AlbertHall (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Lack of peer-reviewd papers is a concern, but there are articles using this term in respected non-peer-reviewed publications (e.g., ).  Searches for "oxytocin mediated attachment" also show quite a few results (e.g. ), which are clearly discussing the same concept using only slightly different terminology.  If the theory is controversial, it should be noted in the article, but this is not in itself a reason to delete. JulesH (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - THOMAS does not seem to be notable independent of Zak, the author of both of the articles you cite mentioning the theory this article is about. Zak is also attached to the sources in the article that specifically mention the theory. Some of the general concepts the theory seeks to tie together are mentioned in the articles that three of the words in the theory's six word title bring up. The theory itself, however, is not discussed in any reliable sources, peer reviewed or otherwise, that are not by or about Zak. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Actually, it does not seem to appear in Zak's scientific work, either. Not even he uses the term!  DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 18 December 2010 (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.