Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comprehensive School Mathematics Program


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-04-13 08:05Z

Comprehensive School Mathematics Program

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable commercial mathematics program; Jd2718 03:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I read salix' and Bbagot's comments, and saw salix's expansion of the article itself; I am now convinced that this article is worth keeping. Jd2718 10:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC) keep I think it is important to document the changes in mathematical education through the years, this program ran for nearly 20 years and at close 55,000 students were using it. We have articles on many minor mathematicians who have had far less impact than this program which shaped the mathematial development of many many people. p.s. I've expanded the article somwhat. --Salix alba (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 04:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep The authoritative ERIC databases from the US Dept. of Education shows 915 results using both the full name and the acronym. The program is no longer active, but archives are available, and apparently material from it is still being commercially produced. Once N, always N. The article itself is not spammy. DGG 14:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The article is advocacy, and doubtless many non-notable acronyms have crossed the Dept. of Education. I deny that once notable is always notable; if a Roman legate is now known only as an Egyptian grafitto, he has ceased to be notable. So here: we are not in the business of cataloging every acronym ever to burble through Washington; they are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't dispute DGG's findings, but as the USDoE sponsored the program's development, they are responsible for cataloguing all the related studies (from development, field tests, etc), making it difficult to consider ERIC, in this instance, authoritative. Jd2718 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A program that successfully ran for almost 20 years over a relatively large area is notable. Programs from the pre-internet time period aren't going to have as many Google hits, but can still be notable based upon their history and scope. Bbagot 06:58, 12 April 2007 (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.