Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomberg Aptitude Test


 * 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 no consensus. Whereas arithmetically, there are more keeps, I do not feel that the arguments of Tokyogirl79 were sufficiently well addressed, hence I close it as no consensus (with keep as default).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Bloomberg Aptitude Test

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Re-Creation of a speedy'd page (likely by a sock of the blocked user). Reads like an advert/promo.  D u s t i *poke* 04:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The article's wording can simply be changed. It is not an advert nor promo as it is well cited. One can simply reword to sound less commercial. The article lists plenty of citation. Also, if you take notice, the first half of the page follows a similar format as that of the SAT page, which is non commercial at all. 12:21AM, 8, July 2013 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtInspiring (talk • contribs) — ThoughtInspiring (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * True, the promotional prose can always be removed. However, what is ultimately at question here is whether or not this test is ultimately noteworthy outside of Bloomberg L.P.. Even under its original title of Bloomberg Assessment Test, I'm not really finding a lot of sources. (Incoming editors should note that the current name, Bloomberg Aptitude Test has only been in use officially this year so you won't get much under that name.) I see where some colleges use it, but not a huge amount. There aren't a big amount of hits as far as either name goes, at least not enough to really establish notability per Wikipedia's rules. So far I'm leaning towards a brief mention in the parent article of Bloomberg LP and redirecting there. The company is notable and I think in this instance the subject matter in general would be best served by creating a subsection in the main article for BLP about the Bloomberg Institute and mentioning the test there. I can't see where this test is really as wildly well known as some of the other tests out there. Keep in mind that this test has only been in existence for three years- it's pretty common for most products (and this is ultimately a product) to not achieve notability outside of their company/creator until they've been around for years. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep In terms of the number of colleges that use it, sources state that over a thousand universities offer it in fifty eight countries. We need to quantify how much is really "substantial enough" to establish notability, and a thousand universities seem like a fair amount. Considering the precedents on specialized exams, the GMAT is offered in 1500 universities, just a bit higher than the BAT. It is also important to take note that the exam is uniquely individual enough that it should not fall under it's parent article Bloomberg LP as the parent is known for it's media contributions, whereas the exam is more of an educational product of it's subsidiary - it is more relevant to students and universities than it does to news media.It is important to note that the exam is only as much of a product as the SAT is, the difference being that this exam is mostly free to take. This article can be substantially edited to provide a scholarly breakdown of the exam as it's predecessors have. Three years seem like a significant time period given that exams such as the SHSAT have been established as Wikipedia note worthy given the same time length. Citations include notable institutions such as Stanford University that offer and promote the exam on campus. The exam itself seems to have global university recognition and returns 70,000 unique pages on Google. 07:42, 8 July 2013 (EST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThoughtInspiring (talk • contribs)  — ThoughtInspiring (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Keep If it's not independently notable it should be merged to article on parent company. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep There's at least one good independent source, not included in the article "Test for Future Financiers " Inside Higher Ed., June 1, 2012 This is a very reputable professionally edited news letter, & the article is not in any sense a  press release.   Looking at some major university sites, I found also from Duke -- but they were a beta site for the project.&#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd be fine with merging it to an article on the parent company as per Candleabracadabra's suggestion.  D u s t i *poke* 01:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Merging the articles go against precedent articles such as SAT, SHSAT, GMAT, ACT, etc... I agree with DGG that the article still has many reputable sources not cited yet and is actually notable enough for it's own page to be built upon. The Parent company is a media company which should not be merged with it's educational subsidiary products. ThoughtInspiring(talk) 12:35 AM, 9 July 2013
 * Actually, the parent subject is Bloomberg Institute which doesn't have an article. I redirected it to the test article. And the parent article to the institute would be Bloomberg Co. But if it's independently notable, that's fine too. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Please note that User:ThoughtInspiring is likely a sock of the blocked user who originally created the article.  D u s t i *poke* 16:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

http://about.bloomberginstitute.com/about-us/
 * Please note that this is a baseless accusation. Let's not take away from the main point of discussion, that being the notability of the subject, by resorting to ad-hominem arguments and finger pointing.ThoughtInspiring (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually not a subsidiary after all! Corrected page to reflect the institute as being an educational division of Bloomberg LP as a part of a venture rather than a corporate subsidiary.ThoughtInspiring (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since there has been concern over possible socking, I'll open up a sock check. It's possible that this is the same user, but it's possible that they're not. Opening up an investigation will clear up any worries once and for all either way. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:48, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigation has been opened here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * SPI does show that User:ThoughtInspiring is likely User:BloombergInstitute - while the recreation of the account in itself is not blockable, this is the recreation of an article meant for self promotion.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 21:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * SPI has been closed, there is no evidence proving the accusation, and the verdict is that even if your accusation were to be true (of which it's not), there would still be no violation. Any further attack on my account that deviates from the notability of this subject should be considered as an attack on my user rather than focusing on the article's notability consideration. As other users have noted above, promotional prose can be removed. I believe the community has reached a consensus on the matter. ThoughtInspiring (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 07:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

 I've relisted the AfD as the large amount of conversation has been over the Socking of User:ThoughtInspiring and User:BloombergInstitute. The "keep" !vote from ThoughtInspiring was indented, as there's a COI there. The other suggestions are Keep as independently notable, and keep and/or merge. I believe the merge idea is something that should be considered and/or discussed, but I felt that a relist is warranted to get more input with the updated SPI information. (For those that are TLDR - SPI came out as WP:DUCK - article created likely as a self promo, however, there's hints of notability.  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 07:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nominate for Speedy Keep WP:SK. Nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion.69.191.241.59 (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Withdrawing nomination for Speedy Keep WP:SK. Relist demonstrates the need for "procedural discussion" and as such is an exception to the rule. On the other hand, I found a good article on the BAT - "The brand spanking new Bloomberg Assessment Test ". The exam is also offered in Columbia University, an ivy league school; "Bloomberg Assessment Test". This article has great potential for expansion. I think it is notable enough for independence.69.191.241.59 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2013 (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.