Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Dynamics Inventory

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Health Dynamics Inventory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable medical tool. The inventors of this procedure appear to have copy-pasted promotional material onto Wikipedia, and even left their contact information at the bottom. It remains without secondary sourcing 14 years later. All the sigcov listed is self-published by the authors. Jdcooper (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found several PhD theses on ProQuest that use the Health Dynamics Inventory, but I can't find any independent journal articles that use it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I didn't find any secondary coverage on google scholar. I think WP:TNT applies even in the case that a wikipedia article could be written.--Rolluik (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article has been PROD'd before so it is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: An article about an assessment framework which is still marketed. The article makes various claims but has always lacked more than lists of papers by the framework's creators. RHaworth's 2010 PROD on grounds of " no evidence of notability" was removed by an IP without comment or improvement. Searches find sporadic mentions, such as this presentation which mentions "Lack of research" as the first limitation. Particularly in medical areas, it is not appropriate to maintain articles lacking reliable references to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2025 (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.