Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tree testing

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tree testing (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)

Largely unsourced and the only sources and ELs provided are self-published blog posts (some of which don't even mention "tree testing". ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• leaning keep There are almost no references to this prior to the creation of the article, which gives a promotional cast to its original version. Nonetheless I do find enough book references in the present to be inclined to keep. Mangoe (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG KEEP. I have added some book citations. Other editors too welcomed to improved the article. It's just KEEP. Wrong AfD entry. _{- Signed by} NeverTry4Me ^Talk 07:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:GNG based on significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2022 (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.