Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Having seen another of the author's articles which featured heavy use of ® and was associated with Mansbach I'm now incapable of seeing this article as anything other than an advert and, in places, a close paraphrase of the company's website. I'd appreciate the community's opinion. Cabayi (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: The Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool is a cognitive instrument, not a company. Countless neuropsychological assessments emanating from neuropsychology have dedicated wikipedia pages, such as Mini–Mental State Examination, Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System, Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery and the Wechsler Memory Scale etc., – all of which are cost-based and were developed by commercial entities. The Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool is used extensively in the public sector, such as in grants funded by the Maryland Office of Health Care Quality and by state governments such as Ohio's Medical program for cognitive assessment. It is also currently being used by various universities in the United States, Turkey, Poland, and China. In the healthcare spectrum, it is used in primary care settings, as well as in gerontology, neurology, oncology, and rehabilitation. The Brief Cognitive Assessment Tool, which has been withstood  peer-review in several scientific journals, has encyclopedic merit as a wikipedia page.  Rymace (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * , this discussion isn't about whether the product is notable, it probably is, but about the article. In contrast to the articles you've cited the article you've written comes across as an advert. I note that most, if not all, of your contributions have been for products of Mansbach Health Tools (this article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The BCAT Working Memory Exercise Book -, ENRICH Brain Health - ). It appears your conflict of interest has left you tone-deaf to the way your article reads, and to the close paraphrasing of the company's material. You also seem to have a blind spot in describing it as "a cognitive instrument" overlooking its existence as a commercial product. If it weren't for the time elapsed since the article was created, and the number of editors who have touched it at some point, I'd have no hesitation in nominating the article for speedy deletion as an advert. Cabayi (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * delete raw scientific market. pure example of the thing.  Nothing like this has a place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- overly promotional and on a subject of unclear individual notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability, overly promotional. -- HighKing ++ 11:30, 30 March 2017 (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.