Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assessio


 * 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗ plicit  11:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Assessio

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Search finds only trivial coverage. See Examples of trivial coverage in WP:CORPDEPTH for details. Reference 4, which has some information about the test, is an interview and thus fails the "independence" test for notability. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 19:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. The publishing of books does not inherently confer notability - especially as the publisher, and not the author!  The Aftenposten article is about Aftenposten using the company's psychometric tests on job candidates and invites people to apply for a job; not really in-depth independent coverage.  The Swedish article would not pass WP:ORGCRIT either, indicating that this isn't just a case of all the sources being hard to find because in a foreign language.  FalconK (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2022 (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.