Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teas 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   keep. -- Cirt (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

TEAS test

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No sources provided, no indication of importance, no significant coverage shown, probable original research. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 16:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I moved it to the correct caps. Appears to be an important test in the nursing industry, enough that there are multiple published books on how to study for it. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Unremarkable test; no non-original research sources. -- Perseus, Son  of Zeus  17:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Article moved to TEAS test. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep A good faith newbee editor is warmly welcomed, article created at 16:21, nom for AfD at 16:25, attempted speedy at 16:28. Shouting OR. Without even the most rudimentary background checking. A race of headless chickens. MrCleanOut (talk) 10:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There is still no indication of importance. Who cares how quickly it was AfD'd? It's been a day now, and you're voting to keep here but you still haven't shown why, you just argue about how quickly it happened. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 10:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You sure are quick, but your work is sloppy. You obviously didnt notice that I added a ref to the page. Why not try some searching, more are available, indicative of importance.  MrCleanOut (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you think my work is sloppy, but it's not up to me to go searching for proof of importance. I did notice you added a single link. And what does that link prove? That the test exists? How about some actual significant coverage? &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 17:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This conversation ought to enter Wikipedia's 10 years anniversary celebrations, on gatekeepers, policy wonks, incremental improvement, and on recruiting to a collaborative project. "The best is the enemy of the good" (Voltaire). MrCleanOut (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazing how you have yet to comment on the actual content of the article or actual reasons for its inclusion in the encyclopedia. That is, after all, the only purpose of this project page. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 20:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't put deletion policy into action either yourself, kiddo. Uncle G (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Deletion policy, Articles for deletion, Guide to deletion, and even User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage it is up to you to search for sources to determine that they don't exist, Timneu22. Doing anything else (a) is lazy and (b) belies any claim that you may make that sources don't exist.  How can the closing administrator believe that the "no sources" assertion in your nomination is in good faith and well researched when here you are saying that you didn't look to see whether that was in fact the case?  (Indeed, how can xe believe the "original research" statement when you've said that you haven't looked to see how the world documents this subject in the first place, before determining that this content isn't it.) How much weight should people give to such statements that you make when you state that you don't put in the effort of looking to see whether they are accurate, and by the timing of your edits at most could only have spent three and a bit minutes checking?  AFD and Wikipedia don't need editors who don't do their research, and whose unresearched opinions can be so easily seen to be based upon zero effort at all.  AFD and Wikipedia need editors who spend more than three and a bit minutes searching for sources before they can confidently and truthfully claim that no sources exist because they've looked and not found any.  Uncle G (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, just what we need! More people not discussing the article! Find me significant coverage of this topic, then maybe what you're saying is worth a damn. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 21:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already been found. You simply haven't bothered to even read the source pointed to, observed by Starblind above and cited directly by MrCleanOut, as evident from your quite erroneous description of it.  You don't look for sources.  You spend a mere three minutes evaluating a subject before deciding on the basis of zero research that no sources exist and that it's original research.  You don't look at sources when they're then waved in front of you.  And you try to make out that it's everyone else that is the problem?  The sheer gall!  You; you're the problem.  Put the effort in, stop biting novices with three-minute deletion nominations, do your research properly, and actually read sources when they're shown to you.  Stop making work for other people and do things properly, Timneu22.  Uncle G (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You know what, everything you've said is wrong. The link provided proves only that the test exists. Where's the significant coverage?? Whine all you want about my processes &mdash; even though this is not the time or the place &mdash; but at least another user here wants the article deleted, there are no strong keep arguments, and there still isn't a single link that shows significant coverage of this topic. Provide it, and prove me wrong. Don't argue about anything else. Holy shit. This forum exists to discuss the article that's being nominated, yet you have consistently attacked my process rather than addressing the failure that is this article. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 17:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (indent) Timneu22 collapsed this section based on "Collapse completely off-topic discussion". Well, it is not at all off-topic, it's about a very bad deletion rationale, and it is an aggrevating circumstance and a major problem that you just dont get it.  A bad deletion rationale is relevant to other editiors and should not be hidden in a collapsed section. MrCleanOut (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually, there are papers on G-Scholar describing the test, at least briefly. A short article based on those sources is appropriate, probably describing what it is in general, requirement/acceptance by nursing schools, and its use in evaluating different teaching strategies.  EEng (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * And this source is where? Still no proof that this has been covered significantly. Add it. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 20:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Timneu22, could you please try to control yourself? You could easily have clicked on the Scholar link at the top of this discussion, but here's a refined link I made just for you .  It's not required -- actually, I wish it were -- that notability-establishing sources appear in the article itself for the article to survive AfD; it's only necessary that it be apparent that such sources do exist.  And you are wrong in saying, "it's not up to me to go searching for proof of importance," because your cite to WP:BURDEN is not apropos -- BURDEN is for content, not AfD. Where you need to be looking is WP:BEFORE: 4. Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. Anyway, why are you so wound up by this? EEng (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Timneu22, how strongly do you need to be prompted to read the source that's already in the article? If you do so you will see that it contains significant coverage, rather than, as you claim, proof "only that the test exists". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I did click it, and it merely states that the test exists. Second, I am unable to visit the source again (limit exceeded or something) to see what it says, exactly. You and anyone else who says I haven't clicked stuff... what an awful accusation. Go improve the article if you feel so strongly about it. No one has. The list from "scholar"? Seems like a few passing mentions. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 21:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the link is to five pages of coverage - how did you manage to miss that? I don't feel particularly strongly about this article, but I do feel strongly about your disruptive behaviour that only serves to drive good editors away from Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I feel strongly about multiple, reliable sources that indicate significant coverage. And hey, at least another editor agrees with me. You're going to blame me for chasing away editors? Please. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 22:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per GScholar hits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, the few passing mentions? Can you point out which hits exactly? &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 22:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We can, but we won't, becaus we don't need to waste our time convincing you. The clear consensus is keep.  EEng (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The proof of multiple, reliable sources showing significant coverage doesn't exist. So why would you keep it? &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 23:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have begged, simply begged an editor to provide multiple, reliable sources to show why this article should be included in the encyclopedia. Instead of providing such information, you constantly attack me. This discussion is about this article and my concerns are absolutely valid. WP:RS and significant coverage are the cornerstones of this encyclopedia. So show this information!!! &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 23:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What give you the right to make such demands when, when you are presented with five pages of coverage in a book from an academic publisher, you say that it "proves only that the test exists"? You have made it clear that you will be unconvinced however much evidence is presented. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Holy shit. Assume good faith. I am unable to go to that "one" link. Besides that, what ever happened to multiple, reliable sources? Why are you able to ignore this guideline for this article? The order of events here is:
 * I don't think this article should exist. Looking for multiple, significant, reliable sources provided.
 * Others say "we added one link". Plus look at GScholar
 * I say, ok, but where are multiple reliable sources? Give me the specific articles that show notability. I see passing mentions but no significant coverage.
 * You say, they exist but we don't need to prove it to you.
 * So by that rationale, any article could exist. Our band IS notable, but we don't need to provide the links! Do you see the struggle here? You see why it's upsetting? I'm trying to follow the same procedures from any other article, and you are not providing the proof that you say exists. &mdash; Timneu22 &middot; &#32; talk 01:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, Timneu22, your Tourette's cleared up! Way to go! EEng (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep 500,000 hits on Google, in quotes, indicates WP:N -- Perseus, Son of Zeus ✉ sign here   16:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep One of the existing references is a PhD dissertation evaluating the test - it is the primary topic of the 198-page book. The other ref currently in the article shows us that McGraw-Hill, a respected academic publishing house, has included it in a publication about the most important tests for nursing students (five tests all in all, in that book). Google Scholar finds a number of academic articles talking about the test (a couple of them discuss the results from the dissertation, others talk about the test itself). Notability seems clear to me. --bonadea contributions talk 12:48, 25 January 2011 (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.