Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Council for Educational Research


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Australian Council for Educational Research
The result of this AfD was stubbify and keep. Non-admin closure. Tan  |   39  12:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Speedy declined, probably a good idea in retrospect. I had grouped this with ACER Press, which did get speedied as advertisement. This article takes text from multiple sources, mostly from the ACER site itself. It seems that there is a bit of non-copied text, which appears to be WP:OR.

Perhaps just stub to the first sentence? I don't have a vendetta against the article, but the way it is, it violates a few Wiki policies - WP:COPYVIO, WP:NPOV, WP:V... Tan  |   39  13:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   — brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 16:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   — brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep  This is a long-established and reasonably well known Australian educational organisation. Many Australians (maybe of my vintage!) would recall doing ACER tests at school. The article needs a lot of work on it to bring it up to scratch, but is not a reason for deletion. Murtoa (talk) 02:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your sentiment and nostalgia, but the problem is that it appears that a large part of this article is text that is copied from websites in violation of WP:COPYVIO. The other text, being uncited, is assumed to be original research, and is highly non-neutral. There's not much to keep here! In other words, this needs a fundamental re-write... Tan   |   39  02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * in need of a fundamental re-write? yes; a justification for deletion? no. Murtoa (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep An important Australian organisation. Can I remind the nominator that AfD is not the place for cleanup, referencing, rewriting or partial copyvios? --Canley (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears that people did not really read my comments but thought that I somehow said that this article needed "cleanup". I removed all the copyvio, OR and NPOV material, which left one sentence that doesn't really meet WP:V. However, I'll back off; I have no vested interest in deleting this article! AfD withdrawn. Tan   |   39  11:48, 20 May 2008 (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.