Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of language proficiency tests

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. Concerns about sourcing for individual items can continue on the talk page. asilvering (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of language proficiency tests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Unencyclopedic list of tests without reliable secondary sources. ... discospinster _talk 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Education, and Lists. ... discospinster _talk 15:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning keep. Language proficiency tests are certainly a thing, and a list of tests used across various languages seems intuitively useful. There are sources, albeit not great ones, but it seems intuitive that better ones would exist, particularly since some of these tests have articles of their own. BD2412 T 02:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not against trimming it to the ones with articles, but then there wouldn't be much to the article to make it distinct from Category:Language tests or the related template. ... discospinster _talk 20:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see much sourcing. Captain AmericanBurger1775 (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 73 references in the article so far. Anything without its own article or a reference, can be removed. This list is more useful than the category, since it allows more information to be listed. Dream Focus 03:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and oppose summarily deleting everything without sources. I have added sources for many entries and more sources can be found by contacting relevant WikiProjects. --Un assiolo (talk) 14:55, 5 September 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.