Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspie Quiz


 * 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. — Soap — 02:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Aspie Quiz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet WP:GNG. No independent reliable secondary sources cover this. The sole source provided is by the author of the "Aspie Quiz" itself, Leif Ekblad, who also happens to be the self-identified owner of the account that created the article. Searches on Google Scholar, JSTOR and PUBMED all turn up nothing, Google Books search turns up a few links to the webpage where it exists but no discussion. 02:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Negligible content, no sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep. The reference on Aspie Quiz is to Sage Open which is a peer-reviewed journal, and all their content is made available on Google Scholar. Has also been posted on research gate. Since the article was made available 2013-08-07 it might not yet be available on Google Scholar. In addition to that, Aspie Quiz is also mentioned in a radio program: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/458/play-the-part (see act two) so has multiple sources. Mentioned on many blogs like http://musingsofanaspie.com/2012/11/20/taking-the-aspie-quiz/, http://www.lifeonthespectrum.net/blog/?page_id=1188, http://life-with-aspergers.blogspot.com/2007/10/online-aspergers-quiz.html. Well-known since at least 600,000 people all over the world has done it. Rdos (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly a feature on This American Life is insufficient to establish notability of a psychiatric diagnostic.  Independent sources in the peer reviewed scientific literature instead are required.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 *  Delete, the only sources are dubious, blogs, open access "journals" or related to the author of this "quiz", long discussions at WT:MED about the problems with these open access "journals", no meaningful content here, and google scholar turns up nothing else.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 11:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. SAGE Open seems to be respectable (despite being open access).  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I should have thought this was obvious, but: it's published by Sage Publishing, a publisher with a good reputation in academic publishing. Many Sage journals have their own Wikipedia articles about them.  A random sampling of these shows that Sage journals are typically held by several hundred libraries in the US.  Most of the dubious open access journals that should be immediately written off have publishers listed in Beall's list (which of course Sage Publishing is not).   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When it comes to journals, being a known publisher isn't an indicator that the journal is any good. Just look at Elsevier. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The suggestion that all or most Elsevier journals are unreliable is bafflingly stupid.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Folks, I think this thread is drifting away from the purpose of the AfD, which is to make policy-based arguments for why the article should or should not be deleted. See also WP:AFDEQ.  Cheers.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Note Before we even need to get into a discussion of the quality of the journal itself, the WP:GNG requires that the significant coverage be independent . In this case, the journal article was written by the author of the Aspie Quiz itself, so the coverage is not independent, and cannot be used to satisfy WP:GNG.   13:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with this. I am uncertain to what extent the SAGE article is "independent" (of the subject). The article serms to suggest that the Aspie Quiz was around prior to that publication, but the origin seems obscure and folklorish.  Since the author of that paper also seems to be the quiz's main champion, I am inclined to think that it is not independent per our guidelines.  But I'm willing to be proven wrong.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the degree you're going to here to WP:AGF, but: The quiz is hosted here: http://www.rdos (dot) net/eng/Aspie-quiz.php, at the bottom it says "Copyright Leif Ekblad, 2004-2013", Ekblad is the author of the journal article, the name of the domain hosting it is "Rdos.net", a WHOIS lookup shows the owner of that domain is Leif Ekblad, the name of the Wikipedia editor who created the article is Rdos, at User:Rdos it says "Name: Leif Ekblad"...  I can't come to any other conclusion than the owner of the quiz, the author of the journal article, and the creator of the Wikipedia article are all the same person.  (By the way, rdos.net is spam-filtered (I wonder what the story is behind that?), so I had to replace the .net with (dot) net.)   14:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a very old (2007 at least) and long story, that I don't have time to go into ... an extensive cleanup of a walled garden of unreliably sourced and UNDUE autism articles occurred years ago. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The neanderthal theory will probably be published as well in a peer-reviewed publication so your undue treatment of it might fire back. Rdos (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure to whom you are directing this comment, but I was not a Wikiepdia editor the last time articles created by you based on your research were deleted: Articles for deletion/Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum, Articles for deletion/Asperger's self-identification and one of several ANI discussions (which is some of the history of how rdos domain came to be blacklisted).  "Of course. I will reintroduce it as the results of the Aspie-quiz are published in a peer-reviewed journal. --Rdos 13:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)" In the eight years since you wrote that, and created several articles to promote the Aspie Quiz, it appears that the only published account of the Aspie Quiz is one written by you. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, so what you say is that if somebody else mentions Aspie Quiz in a peer-reviewed publication then WP:GNG would no longer apply? I find that really strange, but this will probably happen fairly soon as there is another study on it's way to peer-review that used Aspie Quiz for data. Rdos (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You've misunderstood. Please read WP:GNG. It requires significant coverage in independent sources, i.e not you, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are the one with reading comprehension problems. I wrote if somebody else cite or refer to Aspie Quiz, then WP:GNG no longer would apply. And it already has significant coverage in blogs, but apparently that's not enough for people here. Rdos (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is not the best guideline to cite. See WP:SPIP for clarification on this point.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 *  Comment' So now peer-reviewed open access journals are "dubious" on a topic that is not even medical (neurodiversity)? Is this a wikipedia or a joke? 194.237.227.134 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * IP 194.237.227.134 from Sweden. Per the info from Zad68 above, it appears we may have a COI situation.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Most open access journals are rubbish as a general rule. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is true of many open access journals, but certainly not all of them. In particular, not this one.  A certain amount of investigation is needed to ascertain whether the journal is respectable or not.  See my reply to WhatAmIDoing above.  I disagree with the tone of "rubbish unless proven otherwise".   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails GNG. Not enough discussion devoted to this quiz in reliable sources. I ran across some blog mentions and bulletin board mentions, also a bare listing in a book titled Autism and ADHD Diet, but no in-depth coverage in reliable sources beyond Leif Ekblad's own paper. Binksternet (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: No coverage in reliable independent secondaryt sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete does not pass WP:GNG at this time. The self-authored article is fine to cite but it does not contribute to notability.  This American Life contributes marginally to notability.  The blogs do not really contribute to notability.  Let's keep in mind this is a medical test.  What is really needed is coverage in independent scientific/medical sources.  I wish the originator of the quiz all the best of luck with this interesting line of work, although I am somewhat uncomfortable with him voting here due to the obvious WP:COI.  Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note At least the article is on Google Scholar now, which means the above argument about that is false. Rdos (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.