Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohs block

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 Speedy keep, article has been moved to the canonical title, thereby generating more ghits. Jehochman ^Talk 11:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohs block

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

This is a minor psychological test. It scores a massive 95 Google hits ([1]) and my suspicion is somewhat piqued by the fact that its sole source is a dictionary definition and the creator is a member of the Kohs family. It does not appear to be notable, and if it is, this article does not explain why. Guy (Help!) 21:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a significant test, fails GNG. Triplestop x3 23:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would think the article's title might perhaps be a punnish reference to the status of the article creator's account on Wikipedia, though the creation seems to precede any entries in that account's block log. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading the subsequent commentary, I'm !voting Keep, possibly with a move to a more descriptive name (either Kohs Block Test or Kohs Block Design Test); whichever name is picked, the others should redirect to it. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found several articles online which verify that this test has been in use since at least the 1930s, is still in use, and get 11,000 ghits for the topic. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move to Kohs Block Test to remove teh funny. Crafty (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but move to Kohs block design test) not sure where you got 95 ghits from, but there are 669 from google scholar alone [2], indicating the test is in widespread use, or is at least widely published in journals. Google books has even more results [3] though some of them appear to be journal articles and therefore show up in both searches. Either way, seems significant enough to me. Viridae ^Talk 04:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC) Though I had better note that I first came across this afd by way of the notification's on TheKohser's talk page and subsequently found the WR thread) Viridae ^Talk 11:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move per above. Not doing your research before putting this up for deletion just plays into the hands of Wikipedia critics... [4] ++Lar: t/c 05:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
... but it is kinda funny! (guy, you've been played for a boob, I'm afraid!) - an 'I came here straight here from wikipedia review, and it's just bloomin obvious that this is a'.... keep Privatemusings (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - obvious. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Step off, JzG, and please write some articles. Cla68 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. Ripberger (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extend or Suspend until real consensus can be reached I'm pretty sure there are editors out there who know what to do with this article's information to make it useful and accessible to real readers, but until there is significant contribution by uninvolved knowledgeable editors, there will be no real consensus or any chance for this information to survive on its own merits. Until then, this article is just another pawn in a tired, overdrawn feud that has no life left except what's kindled on talk pages, here and elsewhere. Flowanda | Talk 05:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Viridae^Talk 05:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. Flowanda | Talk 06:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What are you trying to say? This nom should be withdrawn and speedy closed, the nominator failed to do their research properly. Sincerely, an uninvolved (and knowledgable?) editor. ++Lar: t/c 06:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Mis-named article created by controversial editor and AfD created by equally controversial admin. Many comments/votes by opinionated editors and admins. At least three editors who came to the AfD via a discussion on a forum critical of Wikipedia. Knowledgeable means subject experts in both the real person and the subject. Uninvolved means editors don't get shredded elsewhere for disagreeing here. Flowanda | Talk 08:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's probably time for this nomination to be withdrawn or closed in a speedy fashion. Crafty (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
e/c on the delsorting, which was done in order to bring in subject experts. I don't mind if it is withdrawn; WP:SNOW nearly applies as well. This article has no feelings, unlike a lot of our BLPs which are treated far worse at AFD. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:59, 9 November 2009 (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.