Deletion of Abel Assessment

Comment: 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 .  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 , suggests keeping the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SURMOUNTABLE)

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 #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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32/Archive|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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Assume good faith (WP:AGF||WP:RS||WP:SPA||WP:PROD||WP:PROF||WP:G5||WP:TNT)

Comment: It's all over Google Scholar.  Deletion requested by , even if we  here, this article should not be deleted
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA||WP:AGF)