Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagnostic 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 merge to Medical test. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 23:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostic test[edit]

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

No general source is identified which discusses the concept of a "diagnostic test". I do not think any of the content here is worth keeping because none is backed with strong sources. The information shared here overlaps with Medical diagnosis and Screening (medicine), and if anything could be kept it might be merged into either place, but I think this call could be deleted.

A "diagnostic test" or "diagnostic testing" article might exist but this one has had no substantive content for some years. If anyone wants to keep this it needs to be trimmed and someone needs to show some sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete Possibly this could be replaced by disambiguation but tests are done for diagnosis of all kinds of issues. We have medical test so we don't need this; if it weren't for the lack of field specificity I'd call for a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 17:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a highly notable topic, with hundreds of thousands of hits in GBooks and GScholar. Sources like

Cochrane's Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy
Mosby's Diagnostic and Laboratory Test Reference
FDA regulation of diagnostic testing, e.g., [1]

show this is discussed in mainstream medical sources. And this is only the narrow medical aspect. Diagnostic testing is important in education, automotive, and IT fields. Frankly, I have never seen a more notable topic proposed for deletion. Regarding the article itself, it is sourced, maybe not to MEDRS standards, but it is a start. More importantly, AfD is not for article cleanup and there is no time limit for improvement. A very highly notable topic and an article with no insurmountable problems suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to medical test Within medicine, it's a near-synonym (it also has other contexts outside of medicine, and if such articles are written they need to be disambiguated. DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect The topic is clearly notable, but is covered in Medical test. The latter is currently a better article. The title can be discussed later. Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect perhaps if needed as although I'm better confident with DGG's analysis, this seems best connected to that other article. SwisterTwister talk 05:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and Mark viking. Alternately, merge into medical test. A redirect, at the very least, is needed for what would no doubt be a common search term. An outright deletion would just frustrate young students looking for an article with an overview of the topic. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A diagnostic test is not a synonym of medical test, but it is part of it and correctly referenced as "main article" there, just like the other forms of medical testing are. On notability, it clearly is, as described by others above. WP:BEFORE comes to mind here. DeVerm (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel the topic is one of the three arms of biotechnology where it is mentioned in the lede: new drugs, devices or diagnostic tests. Does anyone in medicine say "medical test"? I think not, but rather the term is "diagnostic test" which, IMO, should be the main title if a redirect is decided. The article needs attention but there is a long history of diagnostic test development in commercial medicine and clinical application to justify keeping it and making a better article. --Zefr (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2016 (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.