Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCAN (auditory processing disorders)


 * 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. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

SCAN (auditory processing disorders)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As this is a copy of an email (see ), it is a copyright violation as it copies another’s work without their permission. I previously PRODed this article, and the evidence that it was an email was removed, but this still doesn’t remove the fact that this is an email. And besides, it is wholly comprised of someone’s views expressed through an email. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 10:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I am new to this process so I hope these comments are appropriate. I understand there is a discussion by some group to keep or delete this discussion of the SCAN auditory processing test battery. I hope that the group does not delete it. My reasons are that I attempted, hopefully successfully, to write a discussion of SCAN using impartial language, simply discussing it, and presenting references that support whatever was written in the entry about the test.

Secondly, the SCAN auditory processing test battery is an important tool in the armamentarium of people interested in diagnosing auditory processing disorders, and the proposed entry is a helpful way for individuals who do not read the audiology literature to become aware of and familiar with this tool.

The test battery has been available since the late 1980s with two revisions that improve the measure in multiple ways. The refereed peer review literature includes articles that describe the SCAN battery as the most used test for auditory processing in the USA, so the audiology profession is generally familiar with the test and feel it is valid and reliable with acceptable sensitivity and specificity.

Thank you for considering these comments as you review the submission. If I can add any information that would be helpful I would be happy to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UIowagrad (talk • contribs) 20:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as copyvio and possibly as recreation of previously-deleted material (could someone with the appropriate access check on that?). XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first revision if this page is identical to the deleted version (I was the one who requested the speedy), Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 17:44, 19 January 2020 (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.