Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inhibitory Control Test
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. no consensus for deletion JForget 00:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inhibitory Control Test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Test is not widely used and if relevant could be discussed in hepatic encephalopathy rather than requiring its own page. JFW | T@lk 00:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seemed quite notable to me; but if the decision is taken to delete the article, please move the contents to a subsection in the hepatic encephalopathy. Cheers, --CopperKettle 00:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The publication by Bahaj et al., 2007, cites the use of the test to "characterize attention deficit disorder, schizophrenia, and traumatic brain injury"; so maybe it is not so hepato-specific and deserves a small article of its own.. --CopperKettle 00:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep.Keep. I would be inclined to keep for now and see if reliable sourcing can be found to establish relevance beyond simply diagnosing hepatic encephalopathy. It seems to me that this test is a more general assay of neurological function. Perhaps it should instead be merged into a neurology-related page. I think it's improbable that it would be used only for one disorder. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked further, and PubMed turns up a large amount of sourcing, and clearly does relate the test to a lot more than just the one disorder. The page needs to be corrected to reflect that this is not just a one-use test, but I think it clearly passes notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be grateful for any help in improving the article; I've started it on a surge of interest while reading on Wilson's disease, so it is a bit slanted indeed. --CopperKettle 15:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've looked further, and PubMed turns up a large amount of sourcing, and clearly does relate the test to a lot more than just the one disorder. The page needs to be corrected to reflect that this is not just a one-use test, but I think it clearly passes notability. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, subject of the original publication PMID 17222319 but also PMID 18723018 and mentioned in the review PMID 18043677 and the editorial PMID 17593162. Seems sufficient sourcing to establish notability, especially since this test is not new and has been used in other fields previously (refs in PMID 17222319 introduction). Tim Vickers (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2010 (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.