Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extra credit


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Extra credit

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

Non-encyclopedic original research. Speedy declined by myself, mostly because I wanted the creator to see community consensus. Tan  &#124;   39  15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a well-defined concept in teaching. It seems to me that the issue here is the lack of sources in the article.  Given the ubiquitous use of "extra credit" in classrooms everywhere, sources should not be difficult to find. Amazinglarry (talk) 15:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that the article is entirely original thought. WP:OR is policy on Wikipedia, not guideline - and if we went in and removed all the original research, the article would be completely blank. In other words, it needs a complete rewrite from sources; there is nothing here that can be putatively kept. Tan   &#124;   39  15:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A complete rewrite from sources requires nothing more than the "edit this page" button, which even editors without accounts have. It does not require administrator privileges, and the correct template for it is cleanup-rewrite, not {{subst:afd1}}.  AFD is not Cleanup. Uncle G (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I also think it's non-encyclopedic, Uncle G. Try to keep up, mmkay? Tan   &#124;   39  17:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to keep up with. You haven't explained the specifics of that, with reference to actual policy and guidelines.  You did explain the specifics of your objection to original research, and that is what was addressed above. Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a lot to keep up with. Your comments show the quintessential inclusionist attitude that debases Wikipedia credibility. Extrapolated, your attitude is that we should create unreferenced stub articles for every conceivable concept and object, and leave them there with "needs work" tags until someone comes along to conform it to policy. This article was entirely original research. Yes, I took the opportunity (detailed below) to cut it to one sourced sentence, but as I still don't think it meets notability criteria (this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary). You are welcome to your opinion, clearly, but the veiled insult of insinuating I put the wrong tag on there is predictable of inclusionists. Tan   &#124;   39  17:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, inclusionism only implies that stubs on notable topics should not be deleted once they have been created. There's nothing in the inclusionist POV that requires someone to create poor-quality articles, so your extrapolation is in error. -12.68.8.18 (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article can be sourced . It is a concept that is well-known to educators as well as to the educated, and generally, the teacher/professor has discretion about when and how to offer the opportunity. Mandsford (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Mandsford's Google catch. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * PS The question now arises -- who is going to rewrite the article to include all of Mandsford's Google goodies? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to cut the article down to one sentence with a source - at least then the OR is gone - but not sure where to start on the "Google catch". Tan   &#124;   39  16:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Scholastic excellence is not my metier, but I might recommend using "Teaching Psychology: A Step by Step Guide - Page 36" as your source to erase the OR. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I still disagree this should be a Wiki entry - seems to be more relevant to Wiktionary than here. Tan   &#124;   39  17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 19:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not every concept, however well sourced, needs an article. This is no more than a dictionary definition idea, and not a broad enough topic for an article, or related enough for a redirect. Remember that fulfilling a single policy does not make an article worthy of inclusion. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. What is left after the cuts is a dictionary def and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (If an article is really urgently needed we can request it at a relevant project). - Mgm|(talk) 22:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep People really don't think this can be expanded? I'm sure something has been said about the relation between extra credit and grade inflation. Plus, there are plenty of books that offer extra-credit guidelines for teachers:, . Zagalejo^^^ 23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is saying it can't be expanded. The deletion !votes are saying that it's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. One of the sources you gave there was already discussed above, and is the sole source in the existing article. Tan   &#124;   39  23:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if it can be expanded, then why isn't it encyclopedic? Here are a couple more sources that can be used:, . Zagalejo^^^ 01:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if you take a second look at the aforementioned Google catch, it appears that there is a wealth of information regarding the ethical complexities of awarding extra credit (from the teacher's perspective) and chasing after it (from the student's perspective). That takes it beyond the limits of a definition. But that takes us back to the earlier question: who wants to earn extra credit and expand the article properly? Ecoleetage (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Links provided in AFD show that this article has a lot of potential to be expanded and refined into a proper article. AFD is not cleanup. Deletion, though much easier to accomplish than actually writing an article, is absolutely not the proper action to pursue in this case. SashaNein (talk) 16:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —TerriersFan (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. Can't be OR with the sources provided. Needs more content, though. 23skidoo (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - now has the necessary multiple sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete with grading or a similar page. While a page defining extra credit would be at home on the Wiktionary, it is hardly notable enough to require a standalone article in an encyclopedia. -  chic geek  talk 21:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Merge and delete? It's really one or the other. If we delete it, we can't well merge it, and if we merge it we can't well also delete it. Merge is a vote keep for all intents and purposes... - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, you do it in sequential order - you merge any relevant and appropriate information into the larger suggested article, then you delete this page. You keep the information, delete the article. Tan   &#124;   39  16:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well redirects are used to maintain links between relevant sections. So if we accpet the term, and we all do, then it should be kept as a redirect. More importantly, the edit history has to stay anyway, so merge = keep. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There's more to grading than some people may think :).  There's actually quite a large literature on these things--both advice to students, and teacher education and even some research of variable quality, so there's plenty of room for expansion. DGG (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep has verifiable encyclopedic depth. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice toward recreation. It's possible that the subject can be expanded beyond a dicdef, but the current article is a terrible mishmash that would be worse than a redlink. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Most articles look lousy at first. But we don't delete pages just because they need cleanup or expansion. Zagalejo^^^ 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't support either for this article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Hey, take a look at the article now -- it appears some clever people helped to bring it up to grade (at least to stub-worthy grade). Ecoleetage (talk) 15:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep We should have an article on this and this is a reasonable start. Double Blue  (Talk) 15:23, 31 October 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.