Talk:Gene Abel

Article merge/redirect
After making some minor effort to fix issues in this article, I redirected the article to the article about Abel Assessment, making an edit summary saying "Redirecting to Abel Assessment. The content of these articles is mostly just duplication. They're also both poorly written and poorly sourced. Cleaning up one of them will be easier than cleaning up two of them separately." That change was reverted by an editor saying "There was no consensus to make this change." Fair enough, but I really think there is no justification for having both of these articles on Wikipedia, for the reason I gave in my edit summary as quoted here. I have proceeded to try to clean up the Abel Assessment article, but it still needs work. If there is no rapid response here, I may repeat my conversion of this article to a redirect. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * After 24 hours with no responses, I repeated the change. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being delayed, I do not visit this site every day and was unaware that there was a timeline on the discussion. There is non-duplicated information in this article that is not in the Able Assessment article and Gene Able the man, while working greatly in one concentration, is not just responsible for authoring one assessment.  If anything wouldn't it be better to redirect the Able Assessment to Gene Able and have a section about it should that be the consensus of the community?  If you are worried about cleaning up the article I would be interested in helping you as a means of learning more about the editing process as someone who is not as experienced as you.  Let me know your thoughts!  Sjrr124 (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on what I said above? I would be interested in working with you to create a better article.Sjrr124 (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think the prior content of the Gene Abel article was of poor quality that would not be so easy to improve. The sources that it cites that may contain valuable additional information seem to be sources that I don't have easy access to, so I am unable to check them and improve what we say about them. Looking at what the article said as a whole, I suspect that what the article said when citing those sources could be somewhat biased and/or incorrect. My rough impression is that Abel is primarily notable for his assessment test(s), which can be adequately covered in the article on that subject without a separate article about him. I don't really know what we would want to say about him separately. It may be easier to just look for new sources than to try to find a way to access the previous ones. It would be nice if more Wikipedia editors would take an interest in this, as I don't really have expertise (or a strong interest) on the topic myself. There are important WP:BLP issues here – low quality content should not really be tolerated. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Today’s signpost discusses this page in the context of potential COI editing. As the page has already survived an AfD, and as it may now receive new scrutiny, I'm going to restore it to the previous state for the time being. If we want to merge or redirect, a fresh trip to AfD might be a reasonable approach. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I found that discussion at Wikipedia Signpost/2015-07-15/In the media. Extra scrutiny would be very welcome here (and at Abel Assessment), of course. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Correction of the above comment by MarkBernstein: I don't think there was ever an AfD of this article. There was a db-g10 in this edit and then there was a WP:PROD in this edit, but there was never an AfD. There was an AfD of Abel Assessment (with discussion recorded at Articles for deletion/Abel Assessment), but not of Gene Abel. —BarrelProof (talk) 01:59, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * quite right. MarkBernstein (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

After doing some work on the article, it seems significantly better now to me. However, I still don't have access to some of the cited sources, haven't closely studied the article in The Atlantic, and haven't made a serious effort to find additional sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)