Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MCAT topics

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 delete. WP:NOT DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of MCAT topics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has no encyclopedic value. There are also no independent sources with significant coverage (coverage of the test topics). Vanjagenije (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. this list wasn't sourced at creation in 2007 and isn't sourced now. The Medical College Admission Test (MCAT) exam has undergone some significant change over this time. Difficult to see anything to suggest that this list belongs in an encyclopaedia. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Barring specific discussion of the MCAT topics in RS (unlikely), the case for keeping the list is as a WP:SIZESPLIT of Medical College Admission Test. It is a reasonable split since inclusion would make the parent article unreasonably long; the real question is whether it is WP:DUEWEIGHT to include that list. (A first-party source is enough sourcing here, see for WP:ABOUTSELF.)

I think it is on the good side of the "due weight" line, but I understand others may disagree.

In any case, notability as a standalone list is a red herring to my eyes. And the lead could use an WP:ASOF. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tigraan: So, you want to say that if the article is a WP:SIZESPLIT, it does not need to fulfill the WP:General notability guideline? Vanjagenije (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to me it is what WP:SPLIT says (note that the lead on that page is unclear, but the second part only applies to content splits). It is not a guideline though, but WP:AS (and in particular WP:SPLITLIST) does not say anything either way. Of course, the parent article still has to verify it, and WP:V applies anyways. Am I mistaken? Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The topics listed aren't the same as what's in the sole reference document, hence it constitutes WP:OR (e.g. Amino acids and protein structure are listed on p. 11, but not on this list). Even if they were the same, a link to the document from Medical College Admission Test would do just as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.