Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core Mathematics 1


 * 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   delete. Courcelles 00:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Core Mathematics 1

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Article about a very specific section of a very specific version of a qualification. Not remarkable enough for its own article. No other modules covered in the Edexcel AS-Level Mathematics award have their own articles, although they would be equally as worthy. Tomayres (talk) 00:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, no redirect. Way too specific. The syllabus doesn't even have an article, and we have an article for one of its modules?--hkr Laozi speak  07:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not inherently an unworthy topic (there's plenty of independent third-party coverage, after all, with websites set up to help people pass exams, so it would be possible to get something verifiable here and to meet WP:GNG), but delete anyway, because the obvious thing to do with something so incredibly specific is to merge it into a more general article, and there's no verified information here to merge (it's all WP:OR and first-party stuff), nor really an existing article to merge it to. So deleting the current article is no great loss; doing so is unlikely to hurt the future development of an article about, say, the A-level mathematics syllabuses in the UK in general, which would be a much more appropriate place for the text which would be in this article, if it were written correctly. --ais523 11:36, 28 October 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.