Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abel Assessment
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
— User:PWilkinson, 10:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:AGF||WP:RS||WP:SPA||WP:PROD||WP:PROF||WP:G5||WP:TNT (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)