Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambridge special access scheme


 * 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   redirect to University of Cambridge. Just a redirect for now. Elements can be merged from the page history by interested editors. Per consensus below and obvious target. (non-admin closure) Protonk (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Cambridge special access scheme

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

I nominated this article for deletion with undefined on 2008-09-05 21:33, and this notice was removed on 00:13, 8 September 2008, but only beacause the article had been nominated for deletion before. I suggest that this article be deleted, for the reasons outlined below (these are copied from what I wrote at the article's talk page):


 * This article is not encyclopedic, and the information available here is not the sort of information which one would expect to find in an encyclopedia.
 * The information is out of date (for example, there is no longer a separate Cambridge Application Form).
 * It is largely a reproduction of the University's own website (copyright) which is kept up to date.
 * The information is unsourced, (in fact, one source could be given - http://www.cam.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/apply/index.html#csas)
 * Wikipedia should not serve as an out of date cache of the University of Cambridge website.
 * It should also not carry newsfeed-like information about present university policies, unless they are particularly noteworthy.
 * Information here may mislead potential applicants, who should properly retrieve information about admissions from the University's website.

A.C. Norman (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect/merge to University of Cambridge. The title is a useful search phrase and should be kept.  Richard Pinch (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Richard Pinch. There is in fact one reference to the admissions page cited in nom, but the reference is not very explicit.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't oppose a redirect + merge as suggested above, but I've added links to a couple of relevant articles, in case anyone thinks otherwise (or so that they can be taken over with the merge, if they seem useful). I agree with most of the delete arguments except the penultimate one: the access scheme looks like a moderately noteworthy policy (it gets some reaction, negative and positive, in other newspapers, but mostly more tangential than the two I added). N p holmes (talk) 12:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support redirect as plausible search term. If the two newsarticle external links could be worked into the target article as references, merge them across. -- saberwyn 01:11, 18 September 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.