Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOT cancellation 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 keep. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DOT cancellation test

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

Not in widespread use, based on a single reference. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest moving it to Mental_status_examination#Cognition. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Creator of the article. Can you provide evidence that anyone is actually using this test? JFW | T@lk 21:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Evidence that anyone is actually using this test: [1]. Sample: [2] from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. --MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MelanieN. Comment you want more links, Jfdwolff. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:33, 3 March 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) 00:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep The reference cited in the article says it is the same test as "Le test de Bourdon-Wiesma" which is probably a mis-spelling of "Le test de Bourdon-Wiersma". This, and "The Bourdon-Wiersma Test" give loads of references. http://www.crs.dk/function.html says "The Bourdon-Wiersma Test is a commonly used test of combined visual perception and vigilance". Thincat (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment There seems no rationale for DOT being in capitals though it quite often appears on the web in this way, often with a tinge of Wikipedia about it. I can't judge the provenance. I won't try renaming or redirecting at this stage. Thincat (talk) 10:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because of substantial improvement by Thincat. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:44, 3 March 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.