Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CALICO - The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

CALICO - The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I initially nominated this one for speedy, but I agree with the creator that it should not be deleted without a discussion. Educational organization. Aside from the rather promotional article title, the subject has a rather weak assertion of notability and no reliable sources (none have been provided). Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing intentionally  promotional in  either the title or the content. This stub is about a serious not-for-profit organisation  concerned with  education, managed by  Texas University. It  is a consortium of high  level  academics from  many  important  US and other universities and colleges, and its mission is to promote and control  the quality  of computer assisted language learning  programmes. The article may  be short, and lacking  in  third party  praise, but  many  organisations, especially  many  schools and colleges, may  not  have the kind of mention  elswhere that  serve the purpose  of justification for their Wik articles. If the same criteria were to  be applied, then hundreds of school and education articles in  the Wikipedia would also  require AfD.  I  feel that  within  the scope of any  WikiProject  concerning  education, the organisation may have sufficient  notability; the article's existence is in  no way  a flagrant breach  of Wiki  guidelines. The article was written to be purely  informative. However, as I  am  not  connected with  CALICO in  any  way, and have no reason  to  promote it., if after reviewing  the  the organisation, it  is  really  not  considered to  meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article, I  have no  objection whatsoever  to  it  being  removed. I do  however consider 'Speedy'  Deletion to  be a harsh tagging, and that  at  least  PROD would have been more appropriate. There are numerous less worthy  articles in  our encyclopedia where  I  would personally  hesitate before hanging  a 'Speedy' AfD on  them.--Kudpung (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Taken at random from the Category:Education organization stubs, (421 stubs), based on  the same criteria, the following  example articles may also  be candidates for speedy  deletion:

--Kudpung (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Calliope: Pittsburgh Folk Music Society
 * Canadian Association of Independent Schools
 * Independent Association of Preparatory Schools
 * Canadian Union of Students
 * Cognitive Science Society
 * German Scholars Boston
 * American Educational Research Association
 * Bergen Reads
 * Electronic Cultural Atlas Initiative


 * The article in  question has since been updated and expanded. --Kudpung (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: as they will all require a separate discussion, having no connection with each other, they should be nominated for AfD individually---after trying to source them. I am assuming they are not included in this AfD. And, as Blanchard said for this one, they are not appropriate candidates for speedy deletion. DGG (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops! I hope that maintenance editors will not now charge across to the Education stubs department wielding their deletion wands. I was merely citing those articles - taken completely  at  random from  the 400 others in  the category - as being of similar scope and substance as CALICO,  and certainly  was not recommending them at all for AfD. I generally put very gentle comments on authors' pages about improvement before going anywhere near as strong as AfD. I hope I have not done those authors a disservice.--Kudpung (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * keep As for this one, the present article shows notability, and has adequate references. DGG (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

http://swb2.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.312/SET=1/TTL=1/SHW?FRST=6/PRS=HOL&HILN=888&ADI_LND= If more proof is needed, please let me know. I am very surprised that this even is an issue. Prof. Dr. Detmar Meurers (The Ohio State University, US and Universität Tübingen, Germany) Detmar (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are clear reasons to keep this CALICO article. Even a casual google for "CALICO language computer" returns over 15000 hits, most of which are related to this organization and provide ample evidence of the notability of the organization. I originally posted a more extensive comment to the same effect on the edit page of the article itself instead of here, which apparently was the wrong place, so let me repeat here that it is readily apparent that CALICO (and EUROCALL, for which a similar attack has been mounted) should fit under the notable criteria for organizations, i.e. they are international and information about them can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. For example, the CALICO journal published by CALICO can be readily verified in library catalogues, such as
 * Keep Notable educational topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of AfD tag Please: --Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * review the current content  of the article, its footnotes, references, and bibliography
 * reach a consensus based on this dicussion
 * remove the tag or authorise its removal.
 * close and archive this discussion


 * Keep – in addition to all the points above, there are incoming links from eight other articles on Wikipedia – which would become redlinks if this article were deleted. Only one of these articles appears to have been created by Kudpung. -- Euchiasmus (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2009 (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.