Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core Curriculum (Columbia College) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. consensus for notability, nomination issues can be addressed through editing (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Core Curriculum (Columbia College)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A personal essay on the core curriculum of a single college, tagged for speedy as an advert but not blatant advertising, only highly laudatory in tone. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep I'm afraid I don't really see why this has been brought back to AfD so quickly after its last one and it seems nothing has changed since the last AfD when it was resolved as 'keep.' If some time had passed or major changes had been made then of course it would be reasonable to discuss it again.--Wintonian (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I quote from the Keep argument of Novickas in the first AFD, 2 months ago: "National influence. Some book quotes - "Of these, none was more important than the general education movement that was launched at Columbia University in 1919", "Faculty at Columbia designed the first courses for this educational model" , "With its roots in the trivium and quadrivium, the modern history of the core curriculum owes much to the creation of courses at Columbia during and after the First World War..." ." I endorse this strong argument for notability, and add book references which talks about it and says that after 80 years of it being the basis of education, over half the current Columbia students said it was their reason for choosing Columbia.See also , , , , , , , , pp100-103. See also"New Yorker" page 48, . Life Magazine in 1950 said the "famous core curriculum" at Columbia  started the idea of a general common education in 1919, and that it had been adopted by Harvard and U of Chicago. Google scholar shows lots of papers with discussion of Columbia's core curriculum, behind paywall, which might also be used to expand and improve the article. Deletion is not a solution to a  need for editing an article about something which has multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, thus satisfying notability. Edison (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons noted above Cjs2111 (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The complaints raised by the nomination should be addressed by editing not deletion.   Here's another source: A Vision of Transdisciplinarity. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that its too soon to be bringing this back again, the last one ending in keep. If you have a problem with an article, use the article's talk page first.  Plenty of coverage has already been found establishing notability for this.   D r e a m Focus  13:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Important and influential in the history of American education and is the subject of much commentary in third-party sources. I don't see any NPOV problems either, although the article is in need of a few citations.  Them From  Space  09:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Needs major improvement, but I think this is quite notable as a pedagogical phenomenon. Eusebeus (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Needs major improvement, as was mentioned at the last AFD two months ago, not a single edit was made to the article since then to improve any of the issues raised then and it has been tagged again as promo, which it does appear to be and it has been brought again the comments are, keep can be improved by editing, there has only been one edit, to add the rescue template, if in a couple more months the article is unchanged I wouldn't be surprised if it was nominated for deletion again. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2010 (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.