Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abraham Lincoln Commission on Study Abroad


 * 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln Commission on Study Abroad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable commission suggested by two Senators. Never passed out of the Senate, much less signed into law. Caffeyw (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey there Caffeyw. I would argue that, while not particularly notable as a bill, the concepts introduced by the Lincoln Commission changed the entire industry & approach to Study Abroad, catalyzing a shift in focus from Study Abroad as an industry that creates romantic multicultural experiences for students in Western Europe, to a sense that the industry was part of a larger effort to maintain American competitiveness in the global labor market. The two major University-independent players in the industry--Arcadia and IFSA--were inspired to form the Alliance for Global Education, whose emphasis was on sending students to China and India, previously underrepresented low-to-no-traffic areas, in terms of Study Abroad opportunities by this commission. The Alliance, in its turn, inspired a multitude of copycat programs. Since this shift effected the lives of thousands of people who subsequently studied abroad in China and India, and since the bill is likely to become the prototype for future legislation, I think it is worthy of inclusion. I can see your point about the bill's relative obscurity at one level. Can you see mine? It didn't end up changing the law, but it changed the discussion. Does that make sense?ThomasMikael (talk) 15:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seems to have received substantial coverage in reliable sources.  Was mentioned in this book and at least three scholarly articles, and was written up in the New York Times and this Associated Press article.  Was also described as "influential" by USA Today.  --Cerebellum (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree with User:Cerebellum that there are sufficient sources for notability -- the NYT especially.  DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I've included the New York Times reference.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMikael (talk • contribs) 16:17, 27 September 2013 (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.