Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association for Science in Autism Treatment

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 redirect to Applied behavior analysis. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Science in Autism Treatment

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I am proposing the deletion of this article, as its subject (the Association for Science in Autism Treatment) appears to fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

The current revision of the article contains 12 citations, only one of which references an independent source. That one independent source (citation 11) is a 1999 newsletter published by the Autism Research Institute, a fringe group known for promoting pseudoscientific claims regarding the causes and treatments of autism.

There appears to be no other substantial secondary coverage of the article subject. Most third-party mentions appear to take the form of directory-style listings on the websites of various autism-related nonprofits and commercial entities. Some such websites appear to have just published promotional material provided to them by the article subject, itself.

The only scientific paper I could find that made significant mention of the Association for Science in Autism Treatment was a profile of the organization written by one of its board members (DOI:10.1007/s40617-014-0021-4).

Based on the above, I don't see how the organization merits its own standalone Wikipedia entry. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Organizations, Behavioural science, and New Jersey. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only fiend a "field report" about the association [1], that isn't quite enough for notability. Sourcing in the article is primary... Just not enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 18:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (with the history preserved) to Applied behavioral analysis with the recommendation that a sentence about the ASAT be added to the article, with no prejudice against adding more material if it can be reliably sourced to secondary independent sources. I could not find any significant coverage of this topic in reliable secondary sources, but the organization is cited in news coverage and I believe it would benefit readers to read about this organization in the context of Applied behavioral analysis, which is the main topic of every news article that discusses the Association for Science in Autism Treatment. See [2] [3] and the field report linked above. Katzrockso (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the nomination in principle, but how does it pan out against WP:BEFORE? A moment's searching turns up examples like this:

Smith T. Field Report: Promoting Evidence-Based Interventions: The Association for Science in Autism Treatment. Behav Anal Pract. 2014;7(2):147-148. doi:10.1007/s40617-014-0021-4 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4711758/
https://www.gvsu.edu/autismcenter/start-connecting-association-for-science-in-autism-treatment-550.htm
https://doniafahim.com/review-of-association-for-science-in-autism-treatment-website/

There are a vast number of credible independent sites that mention ASAT but not really in enough depth to meet WP:RS or WP:N, but these are just some of those that do.

'Treatment' for autism is a contentious topic. If ASAT are providing an in-depth analysis of these, rejecting chelation and prayer, but advocating ABA (itself contentious), then that's an encyclopedic topic. Does it have enough independent sourcing (not just press releases or passing mentions) to meet WP:N? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley I came across all three of those sources before nominating the article for deletion. I'll address each one below.

The Smith paper you mentioned above was the same one I referred to in my nomination summary by its digital identifier. Smith was an ASAT board member at the time he wrote the paper, which makes it a primary source.

Regarding the Grand Valley State University piece, despite the fact that Amy Matthews (the author) doesn't appear to be formally affiliated with ASAT, it's clearly written in a promotional style (so much so that the piece reads and is even formatted more like an ASAT press release than an unbiased assessment of the organization). Note the less-than-dispassionate language choices (e.g., "Best of all...").

The ASAT website review written by Frank Kou (a graduate student) appears on the commercial website of a company (Education and Therapeutic Spaces Ltd.) that administers ABA. Considering the company financially benefits when the parent or caregiver of an autistic person chooses to hire them to administer ABA, they have a clear incentive to direct people to the website of an organization whose primary focus is the promotion of ABA. Further, like the Matthews piece, the language veers into promotional territory (e.g., calling the information ASAT provides "priceless").

Although there are credible sources (including the websites of various nonprofits and hospitals) that mention ASAT in passing or include them in directory listings, passing mentions and directory listings are not enough to establish notability. I am not arguing that ASAT should never be discussed or cited within any other article on Wikipedia. (I even recently included a quote from an ASAT-published source in an unrelated Wikipedia article, because it was relevant to the subject matter.) I do think it's clear, however, that the organization, itself, fails to achieve the level of notability currently required for a standalone Wikipedia article. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:INDEPENDENT coverage is needed for notability

Shocksingularity (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that if there is more support for a Redirect, it would have to be to Applied behavior analysis not Applied behavioral analysis as proposed as this is a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Applied behavior analysis per the best WP:ATD and the correction offered by the marvelous and always amazing Liz (not being sarcastic, I don't believe in such WP:SNARK. Iljhgtn (talk) 22:14, 22 October 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.