Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Strengths 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 delete‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strengths test

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This reads as an advert hiding as an article. It is only about one product, and I do not see this as a neutral article that should be in Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Psychology. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious advertising, poor sourcing. -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a purpose to advertise. Tried to be as honest and objective as possible. Don't have any affiliation with them. For the sources, I followed a reliable list for guidance to add relative and reputable sources. ScirIvan (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScirIvan, the sources are things like "18 Free and Paid Personality Tests To Find Your Career Fit". These aren't reliable sources. The kind of thing we'd be looking for with this is academic sources discussing the test or the use of the test. -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to personality test. High5 Test is the correct name of the subject of the article, and "Strengths test" could refer to CliftonStrengths, Strength Deployment Inventory or other similarly named assessments. The available coverage does not indicate that the High5 Test is notable in itself. There is scholarly discussion of a "high five model" (Cosentino and Solano, Quito-Calle and Cosentino, de la Iglesia and Solano), but there is no evidence that this discussion is of the High5 Test/High5 Strengths Test. Some promotional coverage like the Indeed sponcon mentioned above; some potentially fringe coverage in PositivePsychology.com but it's more of a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Book results are also trivial, passing mentions. So I don't think the subject matter is notable but there's a case to redirect the title. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as independent notability not established. Citations included appear to be mostly listicles and pay-for-play content. I see no reason to redirect since I don't think "strengths test" is a particularly common search term (and it doesn't seem to be a big target from the article stats). jps (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to “delete” if that’s the consensus. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2024 (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.