Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continuing education unit


 * 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. There is a pretty clear consensus against deletion. Further discussion of a possible merge can proceed on the article talk page. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Continuing education unit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: Seems to be a common enough academic measure online, though I could be persuaded by people actually in the field of education.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I suggest merging this article with the article on Continuing education as the subject is important, but makes no real sense on its own, separate from its context. Merging would improve the Continuing education article and bring context to this article, rather than deleting it.Prolumbo (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. Rathfelder (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak and selective merge with article Continuing Education   - the article has had a tag saying it may include original research since April 2014, but there may be enough in the article for it be merged with the article on Continuing Education. Vorbee (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not seeing any personal content here and so the nomination seems to be an erroneous vague wave. See here for some coverage of the concept. Andrew D. (talk) 10:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This article does not cite any sources.Rathfelder (talk) 11:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No suggestion that this is notable enough to merit an article of its own. No meaningful references.Rathfelder (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nothing was said of this in the nomination so this is moving the goalposts. Was step D of WP:BEFORE carried out? "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability."  Please don't introduce new issues if the groundwork has not been done. Andrew D. (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I added a couple of references to the article. A lot of search results show educational facilities defining what a continuing education unit is, giving out detailed information on it.  So references were very easy to find.  If it can't be expanded farther and the main article isn't too crowded, it can be merged over to Continuing education.   D r e a m Focus  14:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge or Keep I am engaged in major work to improve the article on 'Continuing education' and  improve this article om 'Continuing education unit' as it is within my field. I tend to work locally and upload proofed substantial edits and there is still quite a bit of work to do. I personally think this article has merit as a section of the Continuing education article, less so as an article in its own right, because the former would need to include a substantial section on the latter to be complete. However, perhaps deletion could be postponed for a month or so until my proposed edits and rewrite can be reviewed.Prolumbo (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be much better as part of the Continuing education article.Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2019 (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.