This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted from this draft on 29 December 2025 by reviewer Cabrils (talk · contribs). Psychology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Linking to the 2010 AfD discussion. Tacyarg (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this article from the publications list

• Abrams, M., DiGiuseppe, R. & Milisavljević, M. (2020). Preferences for psychotherapist qualities and psychotherapy modality by Gender, Culture, Age and Sexual Orientation – a North American Survey. In Submission.

This article, which also doesn't seem to be in a journal as of 2025 so I have not added it, seems to cover similar ground (but without DiGiuseppe RA).

• Abrams, M., Grdinic, M. M., & Chronos, A. (2023). Client Preferences in Psychotherapy: A North American Survey. https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3658503/v1/62206e70-25c6-4e85-afe9-7428bf349439.pdf?c=1733147643

(Msrasnw (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]

[The draft's author, who is the subject Mike Abrams, posted the following comment on my Talk page (following my decline of the draft) and I am re-posting it here for greater visibility and convenience--Cabrils]

Hello Cabrils,

Thank you for your earlier feedback on my draft. It is helping me understand how to approach this properly. I've spent a considerable amount of time reviewing the relevant Wikipedia guidelines since your decline of the draft as well as several examples and help pages. I admit I'm still sometimes puzzled about how certain articles with minimal sources remain up with lots of detail and are considered notable, but I do appreciate why the standards here, especially in a case with COI history, need to be applied carefully.

I've made a full COI disclosure and have focused on secondary sources. A friend more familiar with Wikipedia pointed me toward the guidance at WP:NAUTHOR and suggested that the strongest demonstration of notability would come from the academic reviews of books I've published and co-authored. Based on your earlier request, I've identified what I believe are the three best sources that establish notability:

- Boag, Simon (2009-10-14). "Does Psychology Really Need Another Personality Textbook?". PsycCRITIQUES. 54 (41) 6. doi:10.1037/a0017499.

- Colotla, Victor A. (2017). "On the Ubiquity of Sexuality A Review of Sexuality and Its Disorders: Development, Cases, and Treatment". PsycCRITIQUES. 62 (51). doi:10.1037/A0040958.

- Garrick, Jacqueline (2006). "The Humor of Trauma Survivors". Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 12 (1–2): 169–182. doi:10.1300/J146v12n01_09. ISSN 1092-6771.

I have included these three reviews in the draft alongside additional reviews and sources. If you have time to take another look at my new draft, I would be very grateful. Psymba (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Psymba,

Thank you for your response, posted on my Talk page, which I have re-posted here for great visibility and convenience.

I agree it can be very confusing "about how certain articles with minimal sources remain up with lots of detail and are considered notable". All I can say is I am assessing this draft as best I can given my experience reviewing such drafts. This particular draft is complicated by your declared COI, and that you are the subject and thus meet WP:AUTOBIO.

In relation to notability as an author, WP:NAUTHOR relevantly states:

Such a person is likely to be notable if:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors; or

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique; or

3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series); or

4. The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

Of the WP:THREE sources you identify above, I've perused each:

-Boag reviews the 2009 book you co-authored with Albert Ellis and Lidia D.Abrams, Personality Theories: Critical Perspectives.

-Colotla reviews your 2017 book Sexuality and Its Disorders: Development, Cases, and Treatment.

Both are clearly reliable reviews, although both were published in the same journal, PsycCRITIQUES, somewhat diminishing the weight as identified in WP:RS for "multiple, independent" sources.

-The third source you propose, Garrick, is a journal article published in Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma which twice cites the 1994 book you co-authored with Ellis, A. How to cope with a fatal illness: The rational management of death and dying. This reference to your work doesn't feel to me to have the weight of a discrete book review, like the first two proposed sources.

I note that Albert Ellis, with whom you collaborated and co-wrote several works, is clearly a notable psychologist, although his notability does not necessarily automatically flow to you (see WP:IHN).

Given the above, I think the draft is at least very close to meeting the relevant guidelines. What would certainly help would be a couple more book reviews (that could come from the general media, not necessarily from scientific journals). I am being particularly cautious here because of your declared COI and WP:AUTOBIO: the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of conflict of interest. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial, which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV).

Having said that, I would encourage you to persevere as I think we could get he draft over the line. Please feel free to ping me here or on my Talk page if I can be of any further help, and if you are able to implement these suggestions and would like me to reassess the revised draft.

Cabrils (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Cabrils. I added three additional reviews to the draft.

Ellis, Albert; Abrams, Michael; Dengelegi, Lidia; Richards, Karlotta (1995). The Art & Science of Rational Eating: The Sensible, Sure-fire Way to Lose Unwanted Pounds Starting Today! Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 9(2): 135–136. doi:10.1891/0889-8391.9.2.135.

Parson, Erwin Randolph; Garrick, Jacqueline; Pierce, David W. (1996). "Contemporary media forum: Books, videos, and computer software programs.” Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 26(4): 401–412. doi:10.1007/BF02312919.

Review: Personality Theories; Critical Perspectives. SciTech Magazine, Vol. 33, No. 2 (June 2009).

There is also coverage in The Sheboygan Press (March 15, 1993, B1–B2) referencing The Art & Science of Rational Eating.

Please also note that our textbook Personality Theories has been cited hundreds of times.

I understand that Albert Ellis's notability does not automatically flow to me, and I appreciate the caution given my personal involvement. I contributed significantly to all these works, writing a great part of most of them, although I understand there are no secondary sources verifying that specifically. WP:NAUTHOR criteria appears to include co-creators of significant work.

I'd appreciate it if you could reassess the revised draft when you have a chance. Thank you again for your time. Psymba (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisified that WP:NAUTHOR is met through sustained book publication in a coherent field over several decades. Klbrain (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please see my comments on the Talk page re WP:AUTOBIO and WP:NAUTHOR. Draft has good potential. Cabrils (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well done on creating the draft, and it may potentially meet the relevant requirements (including WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:NPROF) but presently it is not clear that it does.
  As you may know, Wikipedia's basic requirement for entry is that the subject is notable. Essentially subjects are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. To properly create such a draft page, please see the articles ‘Your First Article’, ‘Referencing for Beginners’ and ‘Easier Referencing for Beginners’. In short, "notability" requires reliable sources about the subject, rather than by the subject.
  This page was moved from main space into draft following a vociferous and informative deletion discussion, attended by several senior editors and administrators. It was noted that significant edits to the page have been made (and indeed continue to be made) by the subject, Mike Abrams, whose editing account is Psymba, and he has declared this conflict, which is appreciated.
  As such, the review of the page needs to be handled with care, mindful of the higher bar set by pages produced in circumstances of conflict of interest. Such pages typically may read too much like a promotional CV or advertorial, which Wikipedia is not; and/or contain prose that is not of a standard appropriate for an encyclopaedia (also see WP:PEACOCK and WP:NPV).
  Having said all of that, please familiarise yourself with these pages before amending the draft. If you feel you can meet these requirements, then please make the necessary amendments before resubmitting the page. It would help our volunteer reviewers by identifying, on the draft's talk page, the WP:THREE best sources that establish notability of the subject.
  It would also be helpful if you could please identify with specificity, exactly which criteria you believe the page meets (eg "I think the page now meets WP:ANYBIO criteria #3, because XXXXX").
  Once you have implemented these suggestions, you may also wish to leave a note for me on my talk page, including the name of the draft page, and I would be happy to reassess. For the absence of doubt, I (like several of the contributors to the deletion discussion referred to above) do think this draft has potential so please do persevere. Cabrils (talk) 06:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]