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 all. W.marsh 13:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

These corporate vanity articles and images were added by single purpose accounts, one of which (RLM2007) also attempted to redirect existing articles to their articles. There is a related report on the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. — Athaenara ✉ 14:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles:

• McGhee-Mangrum Inventory of School Adjustment (MISA) - (((db-spam)) tag removed)
• Token Test for Children - 2nd Edition (TTFC-2) - (((db-spam)) tag removed)
• Five Factor Personallity Inventory - Children - (A misspelled redirect to deleted article)
• FFPI-C - (A redirect to deleted article)
• Five Factor Personality Inventory - Children - (deleted)

Images:

• Image:Personality.jpg
• Image:MISA2.jpg
• Image:TOKEN-16.JPG
• Image:MISA-16.JPG
• Image:FFPI-C.JPG

COI SPAs:

• RLM2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tammykps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Single purpose accounts in order of appearance on this AfD discussion page

• CGriner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - N.B. apparently also 168.10.112.2
• 168.10.112.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - N.B. May 14, 2007 (UTC) edits
• CindyClack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SLPgeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Drallens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - N.B. removed maintenance tags
• JasonZell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - N.B. removed maintenance tags
• AlliciaClav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Delete. Both these appear to list references, but the tests the articles describe were created this year, and all the references but one each are older than that. That one reference is to the test itself, so none of the material in these articles meets our standard of verifiability. Unless someone can come up with references that aren't self-published sources, then this appears to be original research posted with a conflict of interest. William Pietri 14:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article should not be kept unless there are third-party sources, independent of the authors, which testify to the importance of the test. Unless the test is shown to be notable, it is not reasonable for Wikipedia to have an article on it. The presence of a WP:COI heightens our alertness, and our desire to see everything well-sourced, which it's not currently. EdJohnston 15:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article and images as vanity article lacking in verifiability, with WP:COI, and WP:SPS added for flavor. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom, COI fully evident. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am not 100% sure that there is a conflict of interest here, as there are some indications that it may be just some over-enthusiastic school psychologists,[1] but in any case the extent and the way references and links were added into other articles was certainly inappropriate for such new tests and smacks of advertising, promotion and vanity. The information in the articles almost certainly comes from the test manuals, and as such is not much different from many of other psychology test articles on Wikipedia [2]. However, it is not clear how such new tests can be considered notable enough to warrant articles. Brief google searches confirm this. (Interestingly, I believe that the Token Test, original edition, would made the grade at present). In time, they may become more well-known including publication of reviews of these tests in scholarly journals and these could help them reach the notability threshold that they do not currently reach. Slp1 20:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. Pro-ed is a highly reputable publisher of psychology and other tests, and so I do not believe self-publishing comes into this. --Slp1 20:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The publisher and the tests are notable, though the articles need to be cut down drastically. Will need 3rd party references, of course. Weak keep only because I don't think I will have time to find these.DGG 01:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Arbustoo 02:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article follows the format of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory, WISC, and Stanford Binet; and I see no call for those to removed. I am a practicing school psychologist and articles such as this are valuable in learning about recently published tests. This is how I learned about the Token Test. I am sure this is how parents of children with language disorders research about the tests their children are given. It seems to me that there may be other vested interests in keeping the list of test articles limited on Wiki. What a shame and itself a conflict of interst. — CGriner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:14, May 21, 2007 (UTC). and was subsequently modified by — 168.10.112.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:18, May 21, 2007 (UTC).(diff)
  • As far as I can tell, no other vested interests were involved here. If you have evidence of that, please let us know, as it would be a serious issue. The core problem here is that no sources have been brought forward that meet our core principles, particularly no original research and verifiability. If you have sources like that we can work from, then please mention them. Thanks, William Pietri 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very Helpful. I just logged onto Wiki to search about this test. I have a 7-year old child with Asperger Syndrome who was just given this test by the speech/language pathologist at his school. The test is so new, the only information I could find about it was here on Wiki. It was very helpful. I don't understand why this article will be deleted. I want to come back and check on it and investigate both the good and bad points of the test; Hopefully edited by professionals in language development. If someone has important information to add to the article, please add it. I want to read more about this test. Please don't delete articles like this. This is exactly what I thought Wiki was suppose to do - help people who desperately need to research something they can't find anywhere else. Thank you. — CindyClack (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:49, May 21, 2007 (UTC).
  • Hi, Cindy. Here on Wikipedia we try to summarize and distill the world's knowledge in a way that's useful to the general public, so you've got the right idea about our mission. However, because we want to be a trustworthy source for people like you, we have pretty strict standards about the kind of material we can include. The drawback of this is that some information that's probably good gets thrown out because we can't be sure it's good. But we've gone from nothing to more than a million articles in a few years, so even if this test doesn't get covered now, I'm sure it will be eventually. Hope that helps, William Pietri 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article does not read like an advertisement. It reads very much like a typical test review. Let the editing process takes it natural course. Why is anyone surprised that links were made to multiple language articles? It should be. Particulary to the areas of receptive language, apahsia, and child development. This article could use editing, but should be kept. Let professionals and free speech handle this. — SLPgeorgia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:21, May 21, 2007 (UTC) (UTC).
  • If you believe the article can be improved to meet our standards, now's the time to do it. That's part of why we take five days to discuss the deletion question. As I mention above, I see the key issue as proving that we can write an article that isn't original research. If you can do that by supplying links to solid third-party evaluations of these tests, please do! Thanks, William Pietri 04:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have read both the MISA article and the TTFC-2 article. Both appear adequate to me. Although I am not an expert in behavioral disorders, I do have experience in the field of speech-language pathology. The TTFC-2 article documents the characteristics of the test without inserting commercial properties. In regards to the test itself, the TTFC-2 is considered the 'grandfather' of all listening comprehension tests. It holds the same stature as the Stanford-Binet and the WISC. Parents, teachers, and other professionals are often desperate for information about tests given to their children and students. Give this high degree of interest, expect more and more articles such as this > They serve a purpose. I made several edits to the TTFC-2 article and would expect other professionals to do the same. I also examined the accuracy of all reported references and they are legitimate scientific sources.— Drallens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:26, May 22, 2007 (UTC) (UTC).

Comment: as an SLP myself I will have to disagree with this poster and his/her clinical opinion. The Token Test (original version) might be considered the grandfather of all listening comprehension tests (it is very old, for sure) but the TTFC-2 has only just been published (2007) and is in few clinics or offices as yet. It certainly does not hold the same stature as the S-B or the WISC. More importantly for WP purposes there are no third party reliable sources about it yet. I expect there will be, but there isn't yet. Slp1 02:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This entire debate seems more like a choreographed effort to kill a n article, than an honest debate about the qualifty and accuracy of articles. This whole 'delete the article debate' reeks of hidden agendas and I'm seeing more and more of it on wikipedia... It's unfortunate.!.— JasonZell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

You come jumping in, a brand-new participant on Wikipedia, voting to 'Keep' in a debate where a Conflict of Interest is suspected, and you think we're not running an honest debate? The votes of editors who don't have a track record here are often disregarded by the administrator who closes a deletion debate.

Everyone's arguments will be listened to, whether they are new or old. The article at present is quite lacking in independent third-party evaluations of the test, so it threatens to not pass Wikipedia's standard of notability. If the test is well-documented in the literature, you and the other new editors are welcome to add reliable sources to the article. They will be weighed when deciding whether to keep the article. As noted earlier in this debate, most of the books in the reference list actually *pre-date* the test under discussion, so they don't help to prove this particular test is notable. EdJohnston 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep All Ditto. The thought police are on the prowl in wikipedia! Some narrow minded people seem to think that just because something can be purchased somewhere in the world, any article about it should be banned! Ohhhh, I juut found an article about Wal-Mart! We should delete it because I can go there and spend money on crap! Get a life!.— AlliciaClav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL. You are welcome to review our policy on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. EdJohnston 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I think these tests, though not yet the leading ones, might be sufficiently well established, and therefore N, if such could be supported by specific references. The present references are general, & do not talk about the particular ones here. The arguments of spas can be listened to on their merit; I think that there may have been an overemphasis on their spa status, & that the incivility is not altogether one-sided. The articles could be rewritten to eliminate the excessive detail that gives the impression of spam. DGG 01:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, without the specific references, we have nothing to write an article with. I guess we could trim back to a stub listing the test name and the publisher, but I'd prefer deletion to an article with no sources. Otherwise we set a bad example for all the spam, band listings, and vanity bios we already struggle with. William Pietri 02:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have being doing quite a search for the Token Test for Children-2, including basic online searches, google scholar and Medline and Psychinfo Ovid searches. I was not surprised to find nothing except publishers information etc since usually it takes several years for a test like this to be established and commonly used (especially as budgets in clinics for these are limited), for reviews to be written/accepted/published by journals and for the tests to be used in clinical research projects which then get published etc. Sometimes there are some preliminary articles written as the test gets developed but I didn't find anything like that. --Slp1 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for digging! With special-knowledge items like this, it's hard for a layman to find and evaluate sources. I'm glad you've taken the time to get involved. -- William Pietri 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. There is no room for corporate vanispamcruftisement on Wikipedia. MER-C 08:35, 24 May 2007 (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.