Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Level Environmental Science (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. The 'delete's *just* pip the post here, with there being no specific 'keep's, just a neutral and a suggestion to disambiguate --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 10:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A Level Environmental Science
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Notability and References lacking since 2008. BigGayAllison talk 07:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of textbooks and so on which would cover the course/syllabus adequately to source the article, but whether any textbook based on a syllabus counts as an independent source is another matter. Claritas § 08:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Disambiguate. There's a topic here ("environmental science") and a qualification ("GCE A-level"), and this article concerns the intersection of the two.  This is an encyclopaedia, not a textbook, and it's aimed at the general reader, not the A-level student.  Therefore coverage of the topic belongs in Environmental science, and coverage of the qualification belongs in GCE Advanced Level.  The subject should be mentioned by name in the List of Advanced Level subjects.— S Marshall  T/C 12:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It may be verifiable but it is not notable. Wp should not be used for documenting individual educational qualifications at this level. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.