Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybex 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cybex 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 article has no sources and its only links are to a seemingly defunct website disguised as official information about the NFL combine and the website of the manufacturer of the machinery used to carry out the Cybex test. This is a thinly veiled advertisement for that company's work and the article seems to have no particular encyclopaedic relevance. – Pee Jay 13:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a lot of stuff online in the news and third party sources about this, seems to have significant coverage. Article needs editing, but AFD is not cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say this subject is a pretty niche test when it comes to the grand scheme of NFL player recruitment, and even more niche in terms of Wikipedia as a whole. If this content is kept, I feel it might be better to merge it with another article than to retain a standalone article. – PeeJay 06:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be true, but WP:GNG is a really good standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, as I requested below, I think it would be nice to see some examples of this extensive coverage of the test. – Pee Jay 22:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Article has notability but isn't really fit to stay on the project as-is because it has no sources. Send to draft space via WP:ATD-I for now. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have said, it's notable, and AFD is not cleanup so it should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind providing some of the sources you've found that indicate this topic's notability? It's all well and good saying it, but if you can't prove it, the closing admin should probably ignore your comments. – PeeJay 15:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. Many more but I really don't have time to be posting hundreds of links here right now when you can Google it yourself. These include scholarly papers, news articles, etc. Clearly sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I agree that those constitute sufficient coverage. The last two only mention the test in passing, and the two scholarly articles refer to the test only as the apparatus that happens to be used for those medical examinations. The first one is the only one that covers the test in sufficient depth, and even then its scope is limited. AfD may not be a substitute for cleanup, but if no one is willing to perform that cleanup, how long can we justifiably allow an article with unsubstantiated notability to remain on the encyclopaedia? – Pee Jay 23:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The text purports to be about a test, yet this is a test that was distinctly not notable when it was ostensibly used and is still not notable enough now. There are only two scientific research-papers, one dated 1993, and one 2006, extant about the subject. The rest are explanations of the term in sports websites (here) that explain everything sports-related under the sun, and a couple of news articles, one about scouting (here) and one about injured athletes (here), in which the subject is name dropped precisely once. This is hardly enough for a Wikipedia article. All it does is promote the eponymous machine that was used for the test, whereby the machine & the-company-producing-it are also non-notable. The fact that the text was uploaded by a kamikaze account doesn't help. -The Gnome (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notworthy! Gritmem (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge/redirect as appropriate). The provided sources, in my view, don't constitute in-depth coverage. The SportsRec article, for example, was a couple paragraphs that covered it fairly superficially; neither the Maitland et al. nor the Bayar et al. articles were actually about the test and focused on its role as a generic isokinetic testing system; Cowboyswire mentions it exactly once in a list of others; USA Today mentions it once in a long article not about or related to the test. There is certainly no long-term notability. I have been unable to find actual substantial non-trivial secondary coverage in reliable sources. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:54, 12 April 2020 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybex test

Cybex test

zproxy.org