Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomberg Aptitude Test (2nd nomination)

: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. There appears to be a general consensus that the topic itself is worthy of mention somewhere in the encyclopedia. Beyond that, not much consensus—after three relists—about how to proceed. The editors who argue that it was notable at some point don't really seem to have established a GNG-based case for why, though a suitable merge target was not identified. All this is to say that an editor (or editors) are welcome to consider merge targets in the future and probably could boldly just do it and redirect the article from there. But there's not a consensus to delete, so I think this AFD has reached the end of the line. Go Phightins! 20:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

=[[:Bloomberg Aptitude Test]]=

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloomberg Aptitude Test}}

:{{la|Bloomberg Aptitude Test}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Bloomberg Aptitude Test}})

The free of charge Bloomberg Aptitude Test (BAT) that was specifically targeted to students and job seekers was discontinued in 2013. There is no reference to it at all on the Bloomberg website any more, nor anywhere else prior to 2013. As the article says, BAT has been replaced by a Bloomberg Professional Market Concepts training course which costs hundreds of dollars and is not targeted to students nor given on college campuses. The Market Concepts training course is a non-notable financial education course for business professionals. FeralOink (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. FeralOink (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. FeralOink (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. FeralOink (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: Just because the test is defunct does not mean the article should be deleted. Notability is not temporary: {{tq|once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage}}. The IHE source definitely constitutes significant coverage. I haven't been able to find a second significant source for GNG, but am not totally confident yet that one doesn't exist. Note to others looking for coverage: the test has been written under two names: Bloomberg Aptitude Test and Bloomberg Assessment Test. MarginalCost (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep As per {{u|MarginalCost}} the rational for delete is flawed. It appears to have been notable, and so it stays notable. Jeepday (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: While notability is not temporary it is not clear that notability was ever reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Keep I get 14 hits in GScholar, some are only campus papers but a few are peer-reviewed journals that mention the test. Oaktree b (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
That is the problem Oaktree: they are just mentions. I did check Google Scholar before my comment, and none of them constitute significant coverage for GNG purposes. MarginalCost (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Anyone else? Does this test pass general notability guidelines with signifcant coverage in reliable secondary sources?

So far I'm not convinced by the keeps.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Surely we can merge this somewhere. It is clearly noteworthy, if not independently notable. As this is the product of a larger "Bloomberg Institute", which redirects to this article, perhaps move the article to that title and add information on the Institute (which does appear to return some Google Books hits. BD2412 T 20:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

::{{re|BD2412}} can you give some examples? I looked at several of the first results (both Google books and elsewhere), and just saw citations of the institute's work without coverage of the institute itself, false positives (including authors with the last name Bloomberg, as well as an unrelated child psycholofy office in Illinois), and brief mentions – but no significant coverage of the institute itself. MarginalCost (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

::: If not refactored, I would still think that this could be merged somewhere. There is obviously some higher level of abstraction that is notable. BD2412 T 03:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

:::: The next level up would probably be creating a subsection section under Bloomberg L.P.#Products and services for Bloomberg Education (which seems to be what "Bloomberg Institute" is going by these days, as far as I can tell. MarginalCost (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

::::: There has to be something missing between here and there. We have multiple articles on Bloomberg divisions and products. BD2412 T 00:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Regretful delete – after almost a month of listing, it seems there is no more significant coverage to be found. While I stand by my comments above that the IHE source is significant coverage, without a second it fails GNG. If someone is able to write another article with significant coverage on a related topic, we can always redirect then, but for now, delete. MarginalCost (talk) 03:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete. Coverage is trivial. JBchrch talk 16:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep because it used to be important, but the article may need to be updated. Leaderboard (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Keep WP:NOTTEMPORARY - if it was notable one day in the distant past, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. The coverage is bare, but it's enough for me. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 May 2021 (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.