Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abel Assessment

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 keep. Wifione ^Message 06:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abel Assessment

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

1. Does not fit Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of company product: has NOT received coverage in a reputable newspaper (or other similar news source); and has NOT been detailed in-depth in a published book written by an author considered to be an expert in a related field; 2. Page created by a blocked (sock-puppet) user; 3. Page created to be inflammatory, biased and to disparage company's products; 4. Sourced with ill-intentioned, self-published, derogatory, inflammatory, and sensationalistic websites (e.g. references, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 13: 4. Written with non-neutral point of view, biased, and unbalanced - e.g. presents case where tool not accepted in court, but not the court cases (majority) where accepted; 5. page already flagged in March for not meeting quality standards Sim2001 (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am finding it impossible to assume good faith about this nomination. The GBooks and GScholar searches show multiple detailed discussions of the Abel Assessment for Sexual Interest (to give the full name of the topic) in reliable sources, in direct contradiction of the nominator's first point. I also note that the nominator seems to be a single-purpose account, whose only other Wikipedia activity seems to have been to propose for deletion the article on the assessment's creator (who would seem fairly clearly notable under WP:PROF#C1, with GScholar showing an h-index of over 40 for him). On that basis, I will be shortly requesting that article's undeletion. Also, while the page does seem to have been created by a sock-puppet, the relevant investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence of the sockmaster being an already-blocked user to justify deletion for this reason. Having said that, the remaining reasons (apart from the last one, which is an argument for improvement, not deletion) are more justified. This assessment procedure is undoubtedly controversial, with several of the available GBooks sources apparently regarding the procedure as being a relatively inexpensive one with diagnostic uses but not being specific enough for the use it seems to have got in court cases. However, the article as it stands is a rather unnuanced attack page and, while I am not a fan of trinitrotoluene, undoubtedly needs severe stubbing before being rewritten (preferably by knowledgeable neutral editors) using better sources. PWilkinson (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Gene Abel has now been undeleted. XeroxKleenex (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's all over Google Scholar. Deletion requested by WP:SPA, even if we WP:AGF here, this article should not be deleted. XeroxKleenex (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 11:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With over a thousand hits in GBooks and over 300 hits in GScholar, with many papers, some secondary, discussing the topic in depth, this topic clearly passes notability threshold per WP:GNG. The article structure itself seems fine. Fixing neutrality problems and presenting POVs with due weight are a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. A notable topic and no insurmountable article problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually 154 results in GBooks. The number on the first page is an estimate. James500 (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I get 1,060 with this search. Not sure what the difference is. --Mark viking (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Full Disclosure: I de-prodded this article prior to this nomination, so of course I think it should be kept. The procedure is undoubtedly controversial, but is also clearly notable given the results returned by Scholar and Books. There are issues with the tone and neutrality (though recent pruning has happened), and there are a few dead links, but as mentioned, those can be fixed by editing rather than deletion. Sim2001 is clearly familiar with the subject (not a bad thing), so should be encouraged to contribute to the article and add content to balance out the tone. He mentioned the absence of court cases where the technique was admissible, so that's a perfect place to add some balancing content. Crow^Talk 17:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hard to understand why this was even nommed for deletion per arguments above. Harrison2014 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2014 (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.