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. --Michael Snow 19:15, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony M. Benis[edit]

This nomination also includes the related article NPA personality theory.

I am a scientist by profession, and while psychology is not my field of study, I do have experience in identifying pseudoscience and self-promotion. I am suspicious that the articles on Anthony M. Benis and NPA personality theory (a personality theory invented by Anthony M. Benis) do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, and may also be vanity articles to some degree. I believe these articles have been cleverly crafted to make their subjects appear notable when in reality they are not. My reasons are as follows:

1. Both articles have been extensively edited by ABenis (talk ·  contribs), whom I presume to be Anthony M. Benis himself. In the case of NPA personality theory, User:ABenis made the vast majority of edits.
2. The Anthony M. Benis article is extremely long, yet nothing in it shows why he is any more notable than other researchers in his field except the single paragraph mentoning his work with NPA personality theory. The awards he is listed as receiving are not major awards in terms of Wikipedia notability; for example, there is not and probably never will be an article for the AICE Regional Award or a Category:AICE Regional Award recipients. Contrary to what the article claims, there is also nothing particularly notable about his being a member of Sigma Xi, which has 62 000 members and is open (by invitation) to anyone who demonstrates mere "aptitude" for research. At any rate, none of these awards appear to be for his development of NPA personality theory.
3. NPA personality theory is not widely known in psychology. As far as I can tell, there is only a single unique publication about NPA theory: Toward Self and Sanity by Anthony M. Benis, a book published in 1985 and now long out-of-print. The text was republished in a little-known speculative science journal in 1990. That journal is not a psychology journal, and tends to publish speculative articles on fringe science topics such as warp drive.
4. NPA personality theory is not widely known in general. I performed a Google search for "NPA personality" and the first hundred or so results are almost all Wikipedia mirrors, link directories, or sites operated by Benis himself. Searches on online bookseller sites yield no books on the NPA personality theory. (Compare this with over 30 results for "Rorschach" and thousands for "Myers-Briggs".)
5. Benis himself heavily promotes the NPA Wikipedia article on his websites, as if it lends credibility to the theory. If his theory were credible or notable, he would have also or instead listed references to scientific journals, popular science articles, and established print encyclopedias. I believe he promotes the Wikipedia article because it's (a) practically the only in-depth discussion of NPA to be found on the Internet but not on one of his own websites, and (b) largely authored, or at least partially controllable, by him.
6. To my understanding, the NPA personality theory is pseudoscience and quackery. While that alone doesn't necessarily disqualify it from being on Wikipedia (after all, we have articles on phrenology and intelligent design), it should be a factor we consider when deciding Benis and the other authors' motivation for including these articles on Wikipedia.

I'm willing to admit that I'm wrong about these points; the best evidence to establish notability would be if someone could find a citation index which proves that Benis's work is widely cited in the scientific literature. However, given that his only book on the topic is long out-of-print, and that there doesn't appear to be any other research psychologists writing about NPA, I suspect that no such evidence will be forthcoming. —Psychonaut 03:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This looks to me like a surprisingly successful spam/astroturfing campaign. I doubt you'll get NPA personality theory deleted, as it is - amazingly - currently listed as a Good Article. However, it clearly should be delisted, as it is a pile of pseudoscientific nonsense and the article provides no indication of its lack of scientific acceptance, or any critical commentary whatsoever. Overall, I'd say delete Benis, keep NPA but give it a good trim and add some external criticism. Opabinia regalis 05:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your suggestion is that there is no external criticism of NPA. Geneticists and psychologists are too busy doing real work to address this kind of pseudoscientific nonsense. I ask you to reconsider your vote in light of this. —Psychonaut 05:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, if nobody minds deleting a current GA, I thoroughly agree it should be thrown out. I would've expected more contention on that (compare the fact that nobody can get a school deleted no matter how pathetic its article is). Opabinia regalis 05:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means do so, after looking over the pages talk page (which is about one of the most ridiculous things I've seen here) it certainly doesn't deserve a GA standing. --The Way 05:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I meant thrown out as in deleted, but I just delisted it from GA status. I didn't even see the talk page; what a bunch of nonsense. Opabinia regalis 07:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the sole publication supporting the theory seems to be Benis, Anthony M. and Jacob H. Rand (1986). "A model of human personality [or "human personality traits" according to this] based on Mendelian genetics" (abstract). Proceedings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Publication 86-5, 124. A search in Google for benis rand "human personality based" "mendelian genetics" gets just two hits, for en:WP and fr:WP; one for benis rand "human personality traits based" "mendelian genetics" gets none. I therefore infer that this model of personality sank without trace, other than in the eyes of its proponents. Incidentally, a site about this captions a photo of a gorilla baring its teeth as "smiling", a claim that is debatable, and offers a list of "NPA Sites" among which is the en:WP article. -- Hoary 05:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A model of human personality based on Mendelian genetics" isn't a peer-review publication; it's just an abstract (that is, probably just a paragraph). Moreover there is no Proceedings of the AAAS listed on the AAAS's list of publications. —Psychonaut 05:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sit corrected. (And this NPA article smells worse and worse.) -- Hoary 06:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further: there is also no Proceedings of the AAAS listed where I would expect it: on p.10586 [yes, really, over ten thousand] of the 43rd edition (2005) of Ulrich's Periodicals Directory. I thought of various ways in which it could be alphabetized ("AAAS" versus "American" etc, with and without "the"), but no it's not in any of them. -- Hoary 07:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Best argued case I've seen for deletion and I can't really add anything. In regards to NPA being a 'good article,' that doesn't mean it can't be deleted, especially if it's primarily the work of Benis himself. --The Way 05:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment Also, it's no wonder NPA is a featured article; of course the person who invented the theory can make a good, highly detailed article like the NPA one. Looking at the article's history it was quickly written virtually by Benis alone. This is clearly self-promotion of a non-notable fringe theory by the creator of that theory. --The Way 05:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment on NPA Take a look in the discussion page of the NPA article. It's extraordinary. Here's just one comment, slightly abridged and with emphases added: The article NPA personality theory adds honor to the Wikipedia. .... / The nature of this subject is speculative, almost akin to subatomic particles, we can only approximate and see to it that all the observed facts of the subject are consistent with the theory. As such, the NPA theory is analogous to Darwin's Theory of Evolution in that it frames the complete context of knowledge of biologic beings in a new and startling and even dazzling light. / .... The importance of this article is of the top designation. There is no subject in the Wikipedia that could be of more importance to address than the human personality. / We are devoting every energy to furthering knowledge of this theory. Right. One such energy seems to be the unscrupulous and unintentionally risible use of Wikipedia. -- Hoary 05:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: NPA personality theory already has paragraphs in the highly relevant Personality Test article and in the Karen Horney article. If NPA goes, those paragraphs should go too. On the other hand, NPA may be interesting as an example of Horney's influence. I suggest delete Benis. NPA might do with a WP:NPOV warning. Further editing and external criticism should cut it down to its proper size. -- Stammer 06:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're right it's in the relevant Personality Test article... and guess who put it there? Benis, and the other person Dkatana (possibly a sockpuppet?) who were the two responsible for the NPA article added all the NPA info to the personality test article as well, I'm guessing the same is true for the Karen Horney article. These two individuals seem to be using Wikipedia as a means to gain legitimacy by cleverly inserting the theory into legitimate articles. --The Way 06:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, might be worth mentioning that Stammer, the user posting a comment above, has a five day old account and his only contributions are to anothe psychology article that appears to be an AfD as well. --The Way 06:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My article Personality Forge is actually about Artificial Intelligence, more specifically about chatterbots. You are all welcome to contribute to the ongoing discussion about its deletion. Stammer 07:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was User:ABenis who added (spammed?) the information on NPA into the personality test and Karen Horney articles. (Check his contributions.) And again, there doesn't seem to be any external criticism or review of NPA, so it's not possible to add that information to the NPA article. —Psychonaut 06:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he also added some content to Narcissism, Narcissism (psychology) (it is a separate article), and Narcissistic personality disorder. By the way, I'm pretty sure that D-Katana is not a sockpuppet, just someone who supports his theory. —Cswrye 06:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added the information to Narcissism myself while reworking the article, on the grounds that NPA theory makes a particular and distinct use of the term Narcissism. As far as I can tell, all User:ABenis added to Narcissism (psychology) and Narcissistic personality disorder was minor copyediting unrelated to NPA theory. --Zeraeph 11:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I would strongly recommend taking a look at the talk page of NPA personality theory when making decisions about it. There was a rather lengthy discussion about how to assess its importance on the WikiProject Psychology assessment scale, and this discussion included some points about the merits of the author and the theory. I think that I said most of what I can say there, although I will point out that there is a rather clear conflict of interest with the article. One editor in particular expressed rather directly that his or her intention was to use Wikipedia to promote the theory, as evidenced by this statement: "And, in turn, Wikipedia has the honor of the recognition for championing the theory before any other group of scholars took it on for further development and propagation." This is a definite misuse of Wikipedia, although it's not necessarily a reason to delete the article if it has other legs to stand on. In its favor, the theory is verifiable since there are a couple of publications about it, and while they may be of questionable reliability, they do seem to qualify as reliable sources. However, I don't think that there is much to establish its notability. Benis's publication is over twenty years old, and yet, this theory is virtually unknown in the psychology community. In fact, I suspect that few personality psychologists would have heard of this theory. While I think that the article does satisfy the basic requirements of Wikipedia, it is on the fringes of psychology, and Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to try to establish any credibility for it. —Cswrye 06:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Having looked over the talk page, it appears the only people arguing strongly in favor of the article and giving the article a high rating are Benis himself and one or two individuals that seem very closely linked to Benis as they all seem to edit the very same articles, students perhaps? Especially User:D-Katana. It's a hijack! --The Way 06:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as NPA is claimed to be a method-cum-theory of personality assessment and the two-volume Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment, ed. R Fernández-Ballesteros (Sage, 2003) is bristling with articles on these, we can expect to see it there -- if it's regarded as amounting to anything. It's not there. And neither NPA nor Benis appears within the capacious indexes of either of the large works titled Encyclopedia of Psychology -- four volumes ed. R J Corsini (2nd ed, Wiley, 1994) or eight volumes ed. A E Kazdin (APA/OUP, 2000). NPA seems to be of negligible significance to psychometrics or psychology. Incidentally, I wonder how many academic libraries that aren't also copyright libraries have a non-donated copy of Benis's book: the Library of Congress does have a copy but Copac doesn't show a single copy (paid for by anyone), suggesting that no British university library has one. -- Hoary 07:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as vanispamcruftisement. Very good catch, Psychonaut. This is precisely one of the things that troubles me about Wikipedia even more than reg'lar spam -- bogus knowledge slipped in between the cracks and woven into the article matrix. Yikes. --Dhartung | Talk 07:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I've followed the above discussion, looked up the references and can add nothing beyond mt admiration for the way this deletion has been proposed. Emeraude 10:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sometimes even a Good Article can be bad. Delete both articles because of the inability to find independent verification for the content of either (let alone any sign of significance as perceived by more than a handful of professional, qualified, mainstream psychologists). -- Hoary 11:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nominator, Emeraude, Dhartung and Hoary have summed up my thoughts on the article between them. Also, kudos to the nominator for, as The Way mentioned, probably the best argued AfD I too have ever seen. Psychonaut seems to know his/her Wikipolicies :) Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 11:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a formally published theory by an impeccably qualified academic and MD, who, if you look at the bio, seems to have lived something of a "life less ordinary" which, combined with a formally published theory, I would regard as notability enough in it's own right. There is, after all, surely notability beyond Google? --Zeraeph 11:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There certainly is. A putative issue in psychology should certainly not get the thumbs down because of a low number, even a very low number, of Google hits. However, Google does provide hits for the abstracts of articles in recent issues of most substantial scholarly journals in the cognitive and social sciences. Can you find any article that deals with this theory? As I've said, I think that this model/scale should be in Encyclopedia of Psychological Assessment (Sage, 2003) if it's taken seriously -- the two-volume encyclopedia does not devote a chapter to each of a few dozen such models but instead a paragraph to each of thousands of them. There's nothing there. Can you name a likely alternative to this encyclopedia? We can look it up in our respective libraries. As for formal publication, it seems not to be published in the Proceedings of the AAAS, as claimed, because this doesn't seem to exist. -- Hoary 13:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By "formally published" I mean commercially published by a recognised publishing house, as his book "Toward Self and Sanity: On the genetic origins of the human character" was in 1985 by Dimensions inc was in 1985. --Zeraeph 13:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Benis may be impeccably qualified, but according to his publications list this qualification seems to be restricted to medicine, not psychology. With respect to a "formally published theory", any kook can achieve that, and many of them indeed have (see, for example, William Dembski and Jack Chick) — books aren't peer reviewed. Also, keep in mind that Psychological Dimensions Inc. (now defunct) didn't seem to have restricted itself to publishing scientific books: among its offerings was a book on parapsychology. Now, while all this doesn't necessarily disprove NPA's notability, Google does provide pretty strong evidence when it fails to turn up a single independent scholarly reference to this 26-year-old theory among the millions of academic articles, web pages, and bibliographies it indexes. One would think that a notable psychological theory would have been mentioned at least a few times in the last twenty years, if only to criticize it! —Psychonaut 16:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • His MD would entail a substantial element of psychiatry and psychology, while his impressive academic career would serve to instil the proper disciplines of scientific research and hypotheses an provide a professional reputation that would depend upon adherence to a reasonable standard of same, as his book and presentation clearly demonstrates. Psychological Dimensions inc did indeed publish a compilation edited by T X Barber, a reputable ivy league clinical psychologist, called "Advances in Altered States of Consciousness and Human Potentialities, Volume 1." which related to parapsychology and hypnosis. However this was in 1976, at a time when parapsychology was more closely associated with the mainstream than it is now. --Zeraeph 17:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're completely missing the point (and the conclusion of my last comment), to wit: no matter how "emminently qualified" (or not) Benis is to develop and publish a psychological/genetic theory of personality, the ultimate issue under consideration here is whether said theory is notable. Notability, both in science and in Wikipedia, is not determined by whether the theory is correct, or well-written, or published, or espoused by someone of certain qualifications or reputation (all of which you have argued). Rather, notability of a theory is established when the general public, or at least its proponent's scientific peers, note the theory. Notice the linguistic connection between the terms to note and notability? The latter requires that the former has occurred. Until you or anyone else can present any evidence that a significant proportion of the general public, or a significant number of psychological and genetic researchers, have noted Benis's theory, then we must assume (for the time being) that Benis's theory is not notable. The best evidence that people had noted the theory would be references to it in popular and scientific literature, in the form of books and articles (or even sections thereof) dedicated to the study of the theory, or citations of Benis's published works on the theory made in support of some other theory. —Psychonaut 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wonder, could we go with the policy definitions of notability while discussing this rather than personal opinions? See WP:Notable, which takes us to WP:BIO , Wikipedia:Notability (academics), WP:BK and any other policies or guidelines deemed relevant? --Zeraeph 18:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since when is the plain-English interpretation of the word "notability" a personal opinion? And the subject of this AfD is not Benis's book, so WP:BK does not apply. And WP:Notability (academics) is not a Wikipedia policy; it has just as much official standing as my explanation of "notability" above. There's no need to resort to wikilawyering when application of common sense will do just fine. —Psychonaut 18:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would feel that his theory and the book he wrote about it (which you, I think, chose to include in this AFD for his bio - not actually sure where policy is on that eithe,r to be honest) are a better fit for WP:BK than for any of the other options. For the rest, I feel sure you are as entitled to express your opinions as I am to express mine. Though editing a guideline to bring it more into line with your own opinions on this particular AFD seems a curious way to express indifference to it's contents [1] --Zeraeph 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Benis' theory has never been mentioned, however briefly, in any peer-reviewed publication in any disclipline. While Benis is a scientist and surgeon, he is no psychologist, no geneticist, no primatologist. In the past 20 years, he has not done any scholarly study of relevant literature or research. He has continued to solely rely on a minor personality theory of the early 20th Century. In the meantime, there has been decades of published primate behavioral studies and behavioral genetics research. True, Benis' theory may be valid, but the issue is not whether it is valid, but its noteworthiness. Apparently, it is not Wikipedia's job to provide platforms for obscure theories in the hope they will be discovered. Benis is quite devoted to his theory and book, but his interest has unfortunately not been enough to drive him forward in developing it. Therefore I too, with sincere regret, have to vote *Delete— Preceding unsigned comment added by A Kiwi (talk • contribs)
  • While I agree with your general point, I'm amazed. You say Benis' theory has never been mentioned, however briefly, in any peer-reviewed publication in any disclipline. How did you manage to conclude this? (Do you have a team of eager grad student assistants and a very large library at your disposal?) -- Hoary 13:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Hoary - response to you at the current bottom of the page. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 15:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability. In fact, I could argue OR because although it has been published it is not verified by any other source... Anyway, with access to a vast library (students of universities tend to have access to most academic journals in all disciplines online), that is fully searchable, nothing can be found - as above. QuiteUnusual 13:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom, Dhartung and several others. Valrith 14:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom.Edison 17:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete NPA personality theory, keep (but rewrite) Anthony M. Benis. This is the both the most clearcut and the most worrying AFD nomination I have yet seen. Clearcut in that both articles are about essentially non-noteworthy subjects, and both have wormed their way deep into the mesh of wikipedia at the clear behest of the subject himself. As discussed above, the grounds for deletion of both articles are very clear, and if we let them stand, we might as well give up on AFD. Huge thanks to Pyschonaut for the exceptionally well-researched nomination.
  However, the breach of wikpedia guidelines about verifiability and self-promotion is so serious that I would strongly urge that an article on Anthony M. Benis should be retained, but rewritten as a short article which tells the story of this self-promotion. I know that this is somewhat self-referential, but I think that it is important for wikipedia to record such a serious and successful effort to breach such very clear guidelines: User:Hoary is right to describe this is an "unscrupulous and unintentionally risible use of Wikipedia". Only m'learned friends stop me using stronger words.
  If there is no consensus for a rewrite, then I would support deleting the Anthony M. Benis article; it should not stand in its present form. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote changed to delete both per discussion below. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like your suggestion to keep an article on Anthony M. Benis about his misuse of Wikipedia. However, since this event is has not been covered by any independent news source, I think it would be inappropriate to leave it in the main namespace. Perhaps it could go in the Wikipedia: namespace, as a sort of essay/case study and linked to from policies such as Wikipedia:Vanity articles. —Psychonaut 20:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Psychonaut, I think you are right that an independent source would be required for an article in mainspace, so I'll change my vote to delete both. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 21:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another point is, generally speaking it's a bad idea to vote for rewriting: if someone rewrites the article, you can always change your opinion.. but a vote for rewriting may never be implemented. Mangojuice^talk 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't much like the idea of keeping "an article on Benis about his [alleged] misuse of Wikipedia". These articles have a mighty strange aroma to them and very possibly a similar aroma persists in other articles still to be discovered; yet some of the talk here is starting to sound unpleasantly vindictive. If it's finally decided that these articles should be deleted (and I think they should be), then let's kill them and bury them; no need then to dance on their graves. -- Hoary 00:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I strongly support your POV on this dirty notion of vilifying Benis. I have known this man for MANY years, have witnessed his interactions with others, and he is NOT capable of acting with the intent some here ascribe to him and I find those unfounded and unproven assertions to be highly hurtful and damaging to a man who I have never known to be presumptious, egotistical or self-promothing. He is gentle and humble man and the ONLY reason he has ended up on the topic page today was his reliance on dear friends who strongly encouraged him to come here, never guessing at what could happen. You simply can't look at an end product and extrapolate backwards to discerning a person's inner state of mind, never mind intent - in a case like this where there is zero evidence of intent to use wiki to enrich or glorify himself. -A green Kiwi in learning mode 01:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am very relieved to see two editors managing to remember that DR Benis is a fellow human being and that there is such a thing as WP:AGF (which, in Dr Benis case can, to the best of my knowledge, not only be assumed, but taken for granted). --Zeraeph 03:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • As in scientific literature, a case study needn't name names or assign blame. It could simply describe the events generally (i.e., under what circumstances the two (unnamed) articles were created, how the perpetrators peppered other articles with references to the two, and how one of the articles managed to be listed as a good article). This would then allow other editors to speculate on what specific flaws in Wikipedia policy allowed this problem to grow and go undetected for so long.
      • And as an aside, you're correct in referring to Benis's misuse of Wikipedia as "alleged"; I considered using that term myself but noted that consensus so far is overwhelmingly in favour of deleting these articles. If the articles are indeed deleted, then the misuse will have been established. (Whether or not that misuse was intentional is another matter.) —Psychonaut 00:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm dealing with something almost exactly like this in a number of articles related to hardcore punk. These people can be very difficult to get rid of once they dig themselves in and start lawyering around with Wiki policy. Very Strong Delete Auto movil 21:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both lacks sufficient independent verification to establish an good, neutral article, also not COI concerns.-- danntm ^T _C 00:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the bio article; no opinion on the other one. This is an article on an academic with dubious notability, clearly borderline at best. Given that the article is clearly vanity, we should delete it. Mangojuice^talk 11:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment When we were contacted by an Editor to make a contribution to Wikipedia on the subject of NPA personality theory, we were assured that the individuals there were friendly and open-minded. We believed him. Alas, we were wrong on both counts. Adieu. ABenis Bienek 12:51, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attack of the manipulative, victimized psychologists... Auto movil 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ABenis, I'm sorry to hear that you think this deletion debate shows Wikipedians to be lacking in friendliness and open-mindedness. The original announcement was framed in tentative language and openly solicited contrary evidence. Indeed, some of the participants in this debate have been bending over backwards to uncover any shred of evidence (in the form of citations, publications, etc.) which would support the inclusion of these articles on Wikipedia. We have so far come up empty-handed. As the primary author of these articles and of the NPA personality theory, you are undoubtedly the single most qualified person to provide us with the evidence we need to prove that these articles meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, accuracy, and verifiability. If you sincerely believe that these two articles belong on Wikipedia, I implore you to give us some third-party reviews, citations, case studies, sales figures for your book—in short, anything at all which would support the assertion that you and NPA personality theory are widely recognized as important in the fields of psychology and genetics. —Psychonaut 04:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, per well-reasoned and carefully stated nomination. Please play the ball here, not the man. Guy 18:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Both on the basis of the excellent nomination and supporting comments --Steve 04:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - I was reluctant to vote at first, but after reading the additional comments, I am more convinced that neither of these articles are appropriate for Wikipedia. A single book about a theory does not establish notability for a scientific theory when there has been little mention of it since its original publication and it has not been recognized by other experts. Likewise, I don't think that Dr. Benis has done anything yet to set him apart from similar academics and scientists. However, I will also say that I am somewhat embarassed by the way that he has been treated on this AFD. I had some pretty strong disagreements with Dr. Benis's supporters, but they were never anything less than civil during my discussions with them. Dr. Benis was simply asked to write an article on Wikipedia. It seems that he did not familiarize himself with Wikipedia's policies when he first came here, but let's be honest, most people don't learn them until they've been here for months. Writing an article that gets deleted is not vandalism, and I don't see any evidence that he was not behaving in good faith. There's no reason to attack him here; we only need to explain why the articles should be deleted. —Cswrye 15:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. This is an embarassment to the project, we should attempt to rectify it as quickly as possible. siafu 21:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. I've been following since one of them came up at FAC; the relevant search for this theory is at Google Scholar (where medical works appear), which reveals the work has no widespread peer support, and it appears that Wiki has become a venue for publication of Benis' non-notable works. Sandy (Talk) 22:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article recently had a "request for mediation" template attached to it. The links within this didn't point to anywhere informative, and indeed a quick look around didn't show me any sign of a request for mediation of this AfD. Mediation of an AfD strikes me as an odd idea, but this oddity aside, the template looked mistaken. I therefore commented it out. Anyone who find that there has indeed been a RfM should tinker with the template to make it useful and then "uncomment" it. -- Hoary 04:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS That seems to have happened. -- Hoary 13:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The nomination and subsequent discussion seem wholly persuasive, and, as a side note, while the tone has at times been a shade heated, this AfD has on the whole been a tea party compared to some I've seen. Robertissimo 13:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Mediation? Of what? If we had thought for a minute that our contribution of “NPA personality theory” was improper or, indeed, not enthusiastically accepted, we would never have submitted it. We were told that it would make a splendid addition to the [Category:Psychological theories] section of Wikipedia. We agreed, and we produced the best article that we could, that eventually went through peer review where the major request for change was to add citations. We never claimed that NPA theory was the conventional wisdom of experts in the field, and indeed it is not, although it is the only quantitative personality trait theory put forward so far. But the fact remains that it is you, Wikipedia, who asked for the article. For those who were quick to rush to judgment, we ask you to look through the other Wikipedia entries under [Category:Psychological theories] and tell us, honestly, where you think NPA personality theory should be ranked.

We are mystified at the irrational reaction that led to this implosion. It began with disparaging statements, full of inaccuracies, on the Discussion Page of the article, and quickly culminated in an apparently orchestrated campaign to expunge the NPA theory article and the associated biographical article. If there is one error that we did make, it was to allow the biographical article to take its present form, which does, indeed, give the appearance of a vanity entry. The biographical article was not our idea, and the original information that we submitted was a short paragraph from the dust jacket of our book.

Finally, if Psychonaut believes that he is friendly, open-minded and a “scientist”, then he should know better than to label a falsifiable mathematical model that is outside of his field as “pseudoscience and quackery”. But he is young and should have the capacity to learn from his mistakes. We hope that he does.

But enough. Once more we wish you all the best and bid you …adieu. ABenis Bienek 17:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both I'm sorry that feelings have been hurt, but it doesn't change that, in my opinion, it is for the best of Wikipedia if both articles are deleted. Reading through this discussion and the talk page of NPA have given an overwhelmingly strong argument for deletion. If there are other articles that a non-notable in Category:Psychological theories, I hope these too will in time be reviewed and listed at Afd. Delta Tango • Talk 01:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mediation is needed. This article may be better placed under a psychiatry or neurology section of Wikipedia. The theory's underpinnings are all solid medical science. Here's a quote from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Ninth Edition, p. 152. The neurologist assigns to it (emotion) a more precise definition-a complex state of the organism comprised of a mental component of fear, anger, love, or hate in association with certain visceral changes that are mainly under the control of the autonomic nervous system and lead to a certain pattern of motor expression." And a paragraph later: "Cannon and Bard and their associates studied the ways in which the two parts of the autonomic nervous system participate in the emotional state-the parasympathetic mediating trophotropic, restorative and reproductive functions, viz., the general homeostatic functions; and the sympathetic (including the adrenal glands) mediating self-protective or ergotropic functions. Hess and Bard localized the central control mechanisms in the hypothalamus which are ideally situated to send impulses via descending tracts to the parasympathetic and sympathetic segmental apparatus and via releasing factors to the pituitary-adrenal-thyroid system." Donna K. Hobgood, M.D.Donnamd@pol.net 05:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you talk of a different "section", I think you're referring to the article's (articles'?) categorization. If you think it's miscategorized, you're free to change the categories and to announce here that you have done so. (The AfD template at the top of the article invites editors to improve it.) As for the rest of your comment, you seem to be arguing for the validity of NPA. This is a bit odd, but very understandable in view of the way it has been referred to above as pseudoscientific (or at least redolent of pseudoscience). Still, your task as somebody who thinks the article is worthwhile is not to persuade people here that the theory (its subject matter) is worthwhile but instead to persuade them/us that the theory has made some sort of mark in the psychiatric, neurological or other community. Is it used? Is it even discussed? If not, fine, but was it a stepping-stone toward a theory that is used or discussed? If not -- then I regret that this suggestion may irritate you, but still -- can it be shown to have been a significant part of what later turned out to have been a noteworthy blind alley? Can you name a reference book in which it's mentioned? (It wouldn't need its own article; an entry in the index would be a start.) "My" library is not strong for psychiatry or neurology, but I imagine that others here have access to libraries that are better. -- Hoary 06:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nominator, Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT) the place for hosting original research. Yamaguchi先生 06:14, 1 November 2006

• Keep the article, with conditions. This is the first time I had ever participated in an AfD and at first, of course, I didn't understand that this is not an actual vote and I didn't understand that there are outcomes besides Keep or Delete. I had originally voted "delete with deep regrets", but the physician who is involved in the first research project of Dr. Benis's theory posted here last night and I started looking around and realized that there IS a place, a valid place, for a theory of this kind. Here you can see another researcher whose virtually identical type of theory is part of a very honorable field of genetics - Behavioral Genetics. There is an extremely valid and appropriate place for Dr Benis' study and, IMHO, it should be adapted as necessary to become a part of this article. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 17:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, per nom and other discussion. -Will Beback 04:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NPA per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. I don't like how the article tries to surf on the eminence of Karen Horney, even though she had no involvement in the theory. Between pulbications and citation search I find very little that points to this as an established theory or to Benis as an eminent researcher, although I might revise my opinion on Benis if I find more. Btw, I don't think that User:ABenis's edits to the Benis article amount to WP:AUTO. ~ trialsanderrors 06:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, although it would be nice to file the NPA article in some permanent archive of noteworthy WP:NOR violations. Whether the theory is valid is not for Wikipedians to decide; if there are no reputable sources which accept it, it does not belong on Wikipedia.-- Visviva 09:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CHANGING CATEGORIZATION OF ARTICLE[edit]

• Mediation is needed. This article may be better placed under a psychiatry or neurology section of Wikipedia. The theory's underpinnings are all solid medical science. Here's a quote from Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, Ninth Edition, p. 152. The neurologist assigns to it (emotion) a more precise definition-a complex state of the organism comprised of a mental component of fear, anger, love, or hate in association with certain visceral changes that are mainly under the control of the autonomic nervous system and lead to a certain pattern of motor expression." And a paragraph later: "Cannon and Bard and their associates studied the ways in which the two parts of the autonomic nervous system participate in the emotional state-the parasympathetic mediating trophotropic, restorative and reproductive functions, viz., the general homeostatic functions; and the sympathetic (including the adrenal glands) mediating self-protective or ergotropic functions. Hess and Bard localized the central control mechanisms in the hypothalamus which are ideally situated to send impulses via descending tracts to the parasympathetic and sympathetic segmental apparatus and via releasing factors to the pituitary-adrenal-thyroid system." Donna K. Hobgood, M.D.Donnamd@pol.net 05:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • When you talk of a different "section", I think you're referring to the article's (articles'?) categorization. If you think it's miscategorized, you're free to change the categories and to announce here that you have done so. (The AfD template at the top of the article invites editors to improve it.) As for the rest of your comment, you seem to be arguing for the validity of NPA. This is a bit odd, but very understandable in view of the way it has been referred to above as pseudoscientific (or at least redolent of pseudoscience). Still, your task as somebody who thinks the article is worthwhile is not to persuade people here that the theory (its subject matter) is worthwhile but instead to persuade them/us that the theory has made some sort of mark in the psychiatric, neurological or other community. Is it used? Is it even discussed? If not, fine, but was it a stepping-stone toward a theory that is used or discussed? If not -- then I regret that this suggestion may irritate you, but still -- can it be shown to have been a significant part of what later turned out to have been a noteworthy blind alley? Can you name a reference book in which it's mentioned? (It wouldn't need its own article; an entry in the index would be a start.) "My" library is not strong for psychiatry or neurology, but I imagine that others here have access to libraries that are better. -- Hoary 06:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Hello, Dr Hobgood. I agree with you that psychology was a bad placement, but I don't think that psychitry or neurology are any better. Temperment inheritence under genetics would be the best. For centuries, for thousands of years, mankind has selectively bred animals on the basis of personality characteristics. Cattle, horses and dogs are probably the best represented.
    • And cattle, horses and dogs all have different characteristics that are present and can be manipulated by selective breeding. For dogs, it is territoriality, dominance and affiliation. For man, it might very well be these other three. But it IS in animal science that this type of genetics is best recognized, understood and accepted. Also, considering the huge explosion in primate studies over the past 20 years, it might have TREMENDOUS acceptance with primatologist and primatology.
    • Personally, I think the research has tremendous validity. It is just that, as personality theories go, it's currently dead in the water (even if it proves eventually to have been revolutionary and ground-breaking).. But there are other venues where it could easily go. And if he were to look up the contact info for various primate behaviorists and primate study centers, he might find a lot of researchers eager to examine what he has to say. He could upload his entire book to WikiBooks...
    • The world is still a far way from admitting that we are a whole lot more like dogs and apes than we are like gods. We like to think that how we act and how we think and how we react comes from something a little more fancy that "breeding." But how at home we were not all that far back when people placed such a high value on "breeding", using it to explain all sorts of human success and failure. After Freud, however, and all who came after, and the ridiculous theory of the infant born as a blank slate.

So yes, I more than think his theory has a place - just not in psychiatry or psychology. Maybe in a few more years. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 09:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Excuse the repetition, but I don't think that a debate on the merits of NPA is appropriate here. Yes, I'd agree with you that the "blank slate" idea is ridiculous, but (aside from the fact that it wasn't always ridiculous) it has been sufficiently influential to prompt the recent publication of an entire book (by Pinker). And Freudianism (which I happen find equally ridiculous) constitutes a (putatively) academic and psychotherapeutic industry. I'm waiting for news of the effect NPA has had, on anyone or anything, in any category. -- Hoary 10:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this AfD is not a place for this discussion. I'll be at the Talk Page at Behavioral Genetics --A green Kiwi in learning mode 17:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how far this theory, promoted by a few editors, worked its way into Wikipedia [2][3] [4] [5] [6] and the ongoing campaign to promote the theory on Wikipedia [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] please take the following user talk page into consideration: User:A Kiwi/draft-NPA Personality Theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.195 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 2 November 2006.

• Tribute to a vigilant gardener. The articles are biased and full of self-references. Delete this walled garden using a heavy dose of Roundup. Ohconfucius 01:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't understand how this NPA personality theory piece of original research gets an A- (Quality) and Mid (Importance) from WikiProject Psychology. The idea that human personality is determined by a single Mendelian locus with three alleles is totally at odds with all modern behavioural genetics research into the topic, see introductory textbook such as Plomin et al's Behavioral Genetics (W H Freeman & Co.). This NPA article makes no real attempt to reconcile it's content with current science what-so-ever. Further oddities, such as why some phenotypes are spontaneously aborted are never explained, and make no sense. Why humans have this three locus polymorphism, but all the non-human animals in the article have one single personality type is not justified or defended, and at marked odds with current biological views. How putative monomorphic ancestors give rise to polymorphic humansunder some hand-wave "evolution" section is plain kooky. None of the material in the "Criticism and controversy" section deals with the NPA theory, the putative subject of this article. This is no doubt due to the fact that this non-notable theory is totally unknown to science and therefore uncriticised. From the material presented here, it's fairly easy to guess why, it's not really connected to the present state of knowledge in the field at all. The Anthony M. Benis article fails standards of notability, since it rests on this article as the notable achievement. Pete.Hurd 04:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We had said that we were leaving, but somehow keep getting prompted to return here.

We should like to emphasise that we have never contested the non-notability of the theory. We do not understand why “mediation” should be applicable here, for Wikipedia should have the sole say of what goes into its pages, and there is really nothing to mediate. If Wikipedia decides that the article is not appropriate, we have absolutely no quarrel with that.

We have noted Dr Hurd’s entry, and although this page should not be encumbered with a discussion of the merits of the theory, we hope that you will permit us a short reply.

The original article that we submitted at Wikipedia’s request was short, a bare-bones summary of the theory, without illustrations. The article did grow, at the request of an editor, with further requests to comment on the possible implications of the theory. That is how the section on evolutionary implications found its way into the article.

The biographical article was also not our idea, and we agree that it should not have been there at all.

We suspect that Dr Hurd must have read the article hurriedly, for the theory is not so “kooky” as it may appear at first glance. The non-notability of the theory aside, Dr Hurd’s comments contain several misstatements, and we believe they give the reader an inaccurate picture of the seriousness of our model.

First of all, we do not say that that “human personality is determined by a single Mendelian locus with three alleles”. The model comprises three separate loci for the three traits, and furthermore we did state that there were at least “four tiers” to the human personality, with the possibility of many genes entering into the picture. We also did explain the basis of why certain phenotypes are spontaneously aborted: “Certain combinations of parental genotypes may lead to zygotes having only the P trait (P phenotype) or lacking all three traits (null phenotype, denoted by 0).” The reason why such zygotes are non-viable is that they develop no functioning autonomic nervous system. Although Dr Hurd considers this to be an oddity, it is a predictive aspect of this deterministic model.

Next, we did not say that “all the non-human animals in the article have one single personality type”. We clearly stated that “Akin to humans, the omnivorous, promiscuous chimpanzee, also capable of the gingival smile, would likely have a heterogeneous distribution of types, with NA and NPA types predominating”. Finally, nowhere do we imply that “monomorphic ancestors give rise to polymorphic humans under some hand-wave ‘evolution’”. Surely, Dr Hurd does not mean to imply that baboons, orangutans and chimpanzees are our ancestors.

The NPA theory, being based on genetics, is one of the very few falsifiable theories in psychology. Perhaps, it will turn out to be “false”. But if notabilty is the criterion, then we agree that in the present circumstances it does not belong in Wikipedia. Once more, we wish you all the best, and bid you ...adieu. ABenis Bienek 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do feel that when one academic criticises the work of another in a related field he owes it to all of us to explain that criticism in recogniseable academic terms that we can assimilate and learn from. I am not convinced of "kooky" as a valid academic term. It certainly does not convey much to me about the specific nature of Professor Hurd's objections. --Zeraeph 12:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Mediation[edit]

I feel that I really must point out that the RFM at the top of the page is NOT in any way about this article, or the RFD.The mediation primarily concerns activities on another MFD but this RFD is also involved. --Zeraeph 10:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This might not be the right place to place the mediation banner. -Will Beback 10:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As confusing as I freely admit it is, WP:RFM clearly states:

• Add the text ((RFMF|Case Page Name|~~~~~)) to the top of the talk page of all involved articles. "Case Page Name" should be the same name you put in the box below.

Which, as this page is involved, seems to me to mean that the banner must also go here. --Zeraeph 12:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the instructions say on the talk page, it should be on the talk page, not here. --Michael Snow 19:14, 2 November 2006 (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.