- 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. W.marsh 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Capture bonding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
This article is either conflict of interest or pseudoscience or, as I believe, both. It appears to have arisen as a PoV fork from Stockholm syndrome. It has been extensively edited by User:hkhenson to ensure that his own beliefs are given prominent, if not exclusive, coverage. However, there is not assertion that Henson's theories have any wider acceptance in the psychological community. Physchim62 (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Close AFD immediately. This AFD is an inappropriate effort to punish the primary author for opposing Physchim62 in arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot, and to make the history showing possible malfeasance on Physchim62's part less accessible to the public. In the past, Physchim62 has abused his administrative powers by taking a side in favor of User:Sadi Carnot over User:hkhenson, reverting the article to the Sadi Carnot version, and then protecting the article to insure that Keith Henson could not edit it further. By deleting this article, the history links will be obscured. Since Physchim62's behaviour with respect to this article is in arbitration, this AFD should be closed immediately.Kww 17:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My behaviour in relation to this article is not yet at ArbCom, and I think the current Sadi Carnot case is complicated enough without it. This is why I chose to bring the matter to the proper forums for article deletion. Kww's actions on AfD debates are part of the case, and maybe the closing admin would like to bear that in mind. Physchim62 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This was in the arbitration prior to you submitting this AFD. Care to try again?Kww 18:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- My behaviour in relation to this article is not yet at ArbCom, and I think the current Sadi Carnot case is complicated enough without it. This is why I chose to bring the matter to the proper forums for article deletion. Kww's actions on AfD debates are part of the case, and maybe the closing admin would like to bear that in mind. Physchim62 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Kww's comment is a rather lamentable assumption of bad faith. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I started with the assumption of good faith, but investigation of things like this drove me to a conclusion.Kww 17:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- By the timing, Physchim62 is most likely trying to retaliate against me pointing out his support for noted pseudoscience pusher Sadi Carnot. He says, "My behaviour in relation to this article is not yet at ArbCom." Wrong. Try here: [1]. Before he put up the AfD he apparently didn't look at the article page, the history or the talk page and put an AfD on a version of the page that contains only Sadi's contributions and none of mine. It is also amusing that he doesn't understand that (for reasons stated at the bottom of the talk page} I think the page *should* be deleted if the misleading and unrelated material is going to be kept. Keith Henson 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no evidence that the term "capture bonding" (or "capture-bonding" or "capture bond") is a significant term in any field of psychology. In its current form, the article only cites two sources, and I don't have access to either one, but I'm willing to bet that the phrase "capture bonding" doesn't appear in either one. In [previous versions, the article cited a bunch of articles by Keith Henson, who is also one of the primary authors of Capture bonding. These articles aren't peer reviewed, and Henson doesn't have academic credentials in psychology or any other apparent expertise in the subject. Since "capture bonding" doesn't seem to appear in peer-reviewed academic literature, this article looks like Henson's attempt to promote his own work and his own idiosyncratic take on Stockholm Syndrome, and should be deleted.
Discussion of this article has taken place on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Capture_bonding and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Human_Nature_Review, in case anyone wants to read up on the background. By the way, if it is necessary to keep this article's history available for the arbitration case, the page can simply be blanked until the case is over, then deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With no prejudice to the behavior of the editors involved, the article seems to cite two reliable sources, and thus passes notability guidelines. POV, COI, and other issues are clean-up issues, and nto deletion ones. The behavior of the editors involved should be handled by mediation/arbitration, but none of this is a deletion issue. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the history of this article, I have to seriously doubt that those sources use the term "capture bonding". If it can't be shown that this is a notable concept within psychology this article should be deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible alternative solution Looking through a google search, the term capture bonding appears to be indistinguishable from the established Psychological term Stockholm syndrome. Perhaps a partial merge and redirect are in order? See [2] and [3] and [4] and [5] I will admit that some of these are rather bloggy and not all that reliable, but they DO establish that the terms are really mostly interchangable and that capture bonding is seen, at least by sources apparently unrelated to Henson, as closely related or possibly identical to the Stockholm syndrome, which IS a valid and well established psychological condition. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith Henson has been opposing a merge since December 2005 [6]. I would like to see notability which is independant of his writings (which date from 2002). Physchim62 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- One user is not able to overturn consensus. If consensus exists for such a move, it should be done. If one user acts to disrupt the opinion of consensus, then they may be sanctioned for being disruptive.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith Henson has been opposing a merge since December 2005 [6]. I would like to see notability which is independant of his writings (which date from 2002). Physchim62 (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible alternative solution Looking through a google search, the term capture bonding appears to be indistinguishable from the established Psychological term Stockholm syndrome. Perhaps a partial merge and redirect are in order? See [2] and [3] and [4] and [5] I will admit that some of these are rather bloggy and not all that reliable, but they DO establish that the terms are really mostly interchangable and that capture bonding is seen, at least by sources apparently unrelated to Henson, as closely related or possibly identical to the Stockholm syndrome, which IS a valid and well established psychological condition. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 17:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article should never have been considered for deletion.--Cartman005 20:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We have two book references in the article, one a bare name-check. I found two Google Scholar uses of the term, neither apparently treated the subject in depth. I don't think we have enough for an article at this point. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Stockholm syndrome. Clearly discusses the same concept. If the term is used by others besides Mr. Henson, it can be mentioned as being an alternative name in that article. Blueboar 22:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- "Stockhome syndrome" is an observable symptom. Capture-bonding (credit goes to John Tooby) is an obviously evolved psychological mechanism that--when activated--results in the observable symptom. They are distinct in the same way that "fever" is distinct from the causes of it. The best thing to do might be to blank the page until the discussion here [[7]] concludes. If the decision is to support topic knowledgeable people then I can restore the page. If not, links can be put in where needed to direct people who are interested outside Wikipedia. Keith Henson 04:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's always nice to have experts contribute to articles. One of the things an expert can do, hopefully, is point us to reliable sources that contain information about the subject of an article. If you are, as you claim, an expert on the subject of capture bonding, can you cite some reliable sources (preferably peer-reviewed academic sources) that discuss capture bonding as a concept that's distinct from Stockholm Syndrome? Because if such sources can't be found, Capture bonding should be deleted. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You either don't understand EP and the relation of capture-bonding to Stockholm syndrome or you do and are helping Physchim62 play silly status games. Don't forget he is the one who supported Sadi Carnot when he stuffed the page with unrelated material, some of it outright nonsense. Ask yourself if Physchim62 would have put the page up to be deleted if Sadi was still trying to push his pseudoscience into the article? And why now instead of back in April? Re sources, if HNR isn't considered a good source, would you accept an endorsement from EP big names like John Tooby or Leda Cosmides? If one of them or some other EP name edited the article would you still want to delete it? Keith Henson 16:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be conceding the point that this term doesn't occur in peer-reviewed literature; if there are no reliable sources, the article should be deleted. Personal endorsements are irrelevant. So are personal attacks, so please stop engaging in them. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't concede anything, don't even have an opinion. You can take up the matter of reviewed or not with Robert Young and Ian Pitchford. Pitchford and I had considerable correspondence about the article before it was published. I believe he shared the drafts with his co-editor. Hah, Robert M. Young has a page on Wikipedia [8]. Re personal endorsement, a letter or an edit from John Tooby (who actually first recognized the mechanism) would be a professional not a personal endorsement--given his notable stature in the EP world.
- Pointing out facts which can be verified right here on Wikipedia is a personal attack? I am not the only person being attacking over the Sadi Carnot business. See what's going on in the evidence page. [9]. You also seem to be missing the point: I *support* your and Physchim62 intense desire for blanking capture-bonding (as it is) or deleting it. So what's your problem? Keith Henson 20:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Akhilleus. Doctorfluffy 22:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - user indefinitely blocked as disruptive sockpuppet. — xDanielx T/C 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect (and merge if there's anything worth merging). The term is not widely used, at least in Google Books and Google Scholar. It is a neologism at best. Since there seem to be a few instances of independent use of the term, I suggest redirect rather than delete. --Itub 23:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I don't know whether or not the idea is factually true, or whether the specific name "capture-bonding" is used in the social sciences, but the basic idea has been around in different forms since long before anyone ever heard of Stockholm Syndrome (Rape of the Sabine women etc. etc.). Furthermore, this AfD seems to have been initiated as part of some kind of extended and convoluted personality conflict (the details of which I don't prticularly understand, or feel like expending any effort in understanding), which is not a good motivation for deleting an article. AnonMoos 18:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Akhilleus.--Nick Y. 20:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 'nuff said. -- Zz 13:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, like Akhilleus, background searching has failed to demonstrate to me why this topic is encyclopedic, and the current state of the article doesn't avert these concerns. Daniel 13:29, 9 November 2007 (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.