Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorkKeys

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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WorkKeys

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

Article about a product is written entirely by the vendor. No sources cited that would establish notability - in fact, no sources cited at all. Text is plagiarized from that vendor's materials, e.g., from http://www.act.org/news/releases/2006/09-27-06.html. I don't believe that the WorkKeys assessment is notable; even if sources can be provided demonstrating its notability, the article would need to be re-written from the ground up to make it neutral. Greenth (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with significant cleanup. I noticed this AfD because I was aware of WorkKeys (although I knew nothing about it) before seeing the article -- up until a year or two ago, the state of Tennessee (where I live) required many high school students to take this test. It's still required by several states for various uses -- that's a strong basis for notability. The article (which has been in Wikipedia for a couple of years) was derived largely from vendor promotional materials, but that's a problem that can be resolved by rewriting. I've spent some time rewriting parts of the article -- and I've added some reference citations to third-party sources. I think that this can become an acceptable article with additional cleanup. --Orlady (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GBooks and Gnews both show substantial if somewhat limited coverage. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2011 (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.