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
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: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: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.