Talk:Army Correspondence Course Program

==Notice: This article does not verifiably establish == In my opinion, this article either does not verifiably satisfy the Notability criteria for, or it may violate the Conflict of interest guideline, or perhaps it is a Copyright violation.

Untitled
Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources to verify any claims of notability. Even though the lack of reliable sources in an article is not grounds for deletion in itself, an article with absolutely no sources (or only external links to unreliable ones) suggests to some editors that multiple reliable sources may not, in fact, exist.

Although I am considering tagging this article for deletion according to the Deletion policy, I am nonetheless willing to assist User:, and other recent contributors to this article, to make some constructive improvements to it ... I do not have time to examine this article in depth at the moment, and it may improve over time, in which case this warning was premature.

Please respond on this Discussion page, instead of on my Talk page, in order to avoid fragmenting the conversation.

To better understand why I have used this template, please read Flag templates for deletion warnings ... I realize that some of the expressed possible concerns may not be appropriate in this case. Happy Editing! &mdash;  19:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The author removed the  template without comment, but I restored it ... there are no references or external links, and I do not feel that it meets the WP:Notability criteria for inclusion, so I have proposed it for deletion. &mdash; 72.75.110.31 (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Contested PROD
User Fg2: I cannot find any "references" in the article, let alone "detailed" ones. &mdash; 72.75.110.31 (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

this is actually a group project ....
Um, it might be better to give the article text some time to grow. This is actually a group project that we will simply move to another Wikipedia location that you may or may not be able to find. If you really are worried about official references, there are many -- too many to count -- as the program has been around for 50 or so years. The general idea is to provide a much-needed explanation of the Army Correspondence Course Program for U.S. Army soldiers and other service members to assist with their promotion efforts. Staffwriter (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

censorship always fails, look at the Holocaust
Doug, let's move everything to the various proponent pages. I guess what they're attempting is to censor military items before the information makes it into print, a typical socialist ploy. The thing that caused Wikipedia to succeed was the lack of editorial restraint. They can try to capture new information items as they appear, but there's no way they can review every Wikipedia page for changes and additions. Promotional (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

They missed this new "article" ...
Hmm ... they must be concentrating only on certain types of articles. They missed this English-language article on Kieser Training: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kieser_training

I don't see that any censorship was applied to the article.

Think they're just a bunch of kids? Maybe their mums will take away their computers or something. Juergensand (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agendas should be examined
The thing that Wikipedia should look at is whether "editors" establish trends with their edits. Some people have agendas, and some are rather obvious about their efforts. Precluding certain types of information from being posted to Wikipedia is censorship. The good thing is that censorship is neither good, nor does it ever succeed (because it's too easy to bypass). Staffwriter (talk) 08:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

start pushing text out to proponent Wiki pages
OK, we can start copying the text to the various proponent Wiki pages. If someone deletes this page, the text is also stored at the alternate Wiki page. Let me know if you didn't get the link. Juergensand (talk) 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

About this article and wikipedia
Hello, I've recently edited the article to try and make it conform to our manual of style. A few quick points


 * This seems a notable subject, so there is no problem having an article about it.
 * We write about articles from the perspective of an overview - so discussing how many people a year do those courses are fine, what course they offer, where they offer them etc is fine but we wouldn't provide the level of detail that was previously in this article - basically this article cannot be a manual for students to use to enrol on courses.
 * Please avoid "you" - this is again tied to an article being a manual, we never directly refer to readers in an article.

Any questions?

--Cameron Scott (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I will add to Cameron's comment. With all due respect to the hard-working people in the US Armed Forces (I used to be a servicemember myself), if users want to avoid some dumb bloke (like myself) from taking it to AFD, the article needs more referencing and cleanup. It needs to provide real-world information (i.e. to those outside the US military) as well as context so that those non-military people can understand. What does the ACCP accomplish? What types of courses do ACCP offer? What do soldiers learn in these courses? These are some of the questions that need to be answered in such terms that regular civilians can understand (for instance, very little people outside the US Army will know what "DA Pamphlet 351-20" is). MuZemike ( talk ) 17:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)