Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achievement in British Education


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 05:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Achievement in British Education
This article has a rather nebulous title that is poorly defined in the article, is poorly written, is one-sided and is absolutely full of POV assertions with no sources. Unless someone with enough knowledge of the subject steps up to do a balanced rewrite, I think it should be deleted. NicM 22:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC).


 * I am studying this right now in my Sociology classes. It is quite clear somebody has simply taken the textbook! All our sources seem to be highly critical of IQ and claim that it is "not a sociological explanation" (wtf?). Somebody apparently decided to totally reverse the bias of the article, too . I will add some sources but the article may be beyond repair. r3m0t talk 00:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep (provided more sources added) I would say the article was a fair summary of what British "experts" say on the subject. I imagine its based on the intro of some longer tome which goes on to discuss each point in detail with sources/studies identified. Whether or not one agrees with it you can't really put it down as one contributor's POV - its just summarising the mainstream view of sociologists. Jameswilson 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't put it down as one contributor's point of view. Much of it may well be true, but it is still poorly defined and POV. NicM 08:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC).


 * The article is definitely not a fair summary of what British experts say. If it were, British expert opinion claims that UK education is a sociological disaster! At best, this article is what one sociologist says, without attribution, and so fails to be NPOV. It also fails to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia except perhaps as 'Conclusions of the X Report into British Education' (where X is whoever's POV this article represents). In all, content is thoroughly misleading and of dubious merit. Delete 84.67.190.181 21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * There was a serious amount of research behind many of the points in the article, and the whole thing in fact forms a major part of an AS Unit for Sociology. Dammit, if the people writing the qualifications admit the system is seriously screwed up, surely this is not just one person's POV? :P r3m0t talk 22:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Exaactly so. But User:84.67.190.181 is misinformed. The consensus of British expert opinion does claim exactly that - that UK education is a disaster for working-class children! Their published work and textbooks reflect that and every new government initiative starts from that assumption. I will concede that the article should be retitled "Disparities in Educational Achievement" or some such to make it clearer what the point at issue is. Jameswilson 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep probably needs renaming and sourcing (having been through British education). - FrancisTyers 16:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Anytime you are putting in an encyclopedia a "point at issue" you are not doing the correct thing. Writing an article which has as its sole purpose the advocacy of a particular view, even when phrased neutrally, is not what this project is about.  I recommend it be deleteed. --DSYoungEsq 22:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete original research and hopelessly POV. Stifle 23:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Can probably be cleaned up nicely. -- JJay 23:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete unless references, sources, external links, etc can be put in place pronto, in which case Rename and make more NPOV, especially opening section. David Kernow 06:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rename to what exactly? r3m0t talk 23:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Simply placing "Factors affecting" before the rest of title begins to clarify what the article is about; but, depending on what sources, references et al can be provided, a prefix such as "Studies of" may be more accurate. Providing sources, references et al and rephrasing parts of the article to (try to) defuse potential POV claims should indicate what kind of title is most representative. Happy Christmas! David Kernow 06:52, 25 December 2005 (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.