Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High school dropouts: an annotated bibliography


 * 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.  Singu larity  02:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

High school dropouts: an annotated bibliography

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

Delete. This is an apparent essay, written in violation of our OR/synth policies. Wikipedia is does not publish original thought in this manner. Lawrence Cohen §  t / e  19:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Already prodded previously, no real need to bring it here just yet. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This new trend of articles is troubling, from an encyclopediac standpoint, so I wanted to ensure a wider review than just having it slink off into deletion a few weeks out. The five AFDs currently up will be a good barometer on this new trend. Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  20:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * These are very odd; they've all been created by SPAs (one for each). Not enough for [{WP:RFCU]], most likely, but I suspect they are all the same editor due to the identical style. In other words I wouldn't call it a "trend" but possible evidence of POV-pushing. --Dhartung | Talk 20:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Awfully odd POV push, if thats the case... some of the topics aren't exactly related. Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe all from the same class? It is getting towards the end of the college semester, so final papers and such might be due soon. -- B figura (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a personal essay filled with soap and original research Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 20:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as pure original research and synthesis B figura  (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Dropping out. The material in the annotated bibliography is suitable for inclusion as references, and this is not original research in the sense of someone's new theory. --Eastmain (talk) 23:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or Move to user space. This is simply a personal essay/notes. While it could be used for research in other articles, it's certainly not appropriate for mainspace. Vassyana (talk) 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as essay and synthesis. Maybe we need a WP:ANNOTATEDBIBLIOGRAPHY.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ros0709 (talk) 09:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as violation of WP:NOR. —TreasuryTag —t —c 09:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: to date, eight similar articles have been created within a short timeframe. There is ongoing discussion about them here. Ros0709 (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a question: could this possibly be a school project or something? Like an assignment by an adamant teacher that wants his students to post this project on the internet or specificly Wikipedia? I mean considering these were all made by single purpose accounts it seems plausible Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You may very well be right about that. I can't think of a more plausible explanation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to user space for nurturing to encyclopedic form. The article does veer off and gets lost in opinion, but it's a laudable topic to write about drop out and this is just first attempt at an article on the topic.  But the title doesn't need saving, and I'm not keen on putting it in "dropping out" either.    Plenty of good references on school drop out policy and statistics are out there.  There are good workarounds, and since the editor who created the article is new perhaps coaching from experienced editors can help the process.  The doubled pending deletion notices aren't the friendliest welcome I've seen for a newbie talk page.  It could be an instructor is using WP as a class project or something, and presumably not every student can do A+ work on the wikipedia with their first article creation.  Professor marginalia (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The section titled "Fixing the problem" places this article clearly in the domain of journalism, not an encyclopedia. WillOakland (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:NOT multiple offender. Author should have known better, we're not the least bit obligated to keep it. WillOakland (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeat offender? How so?Professor marginalia (talk) 03:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Multiple offender. WillOakland (talk)
 * I'm curious then why there is no evidence of this whatsoever on the user's talk page.       What makes the user a multiple offender?  Professor marginalia (talk) 14:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I read that to mean that multiple elements of WP:NOT applied, not that the article creator had previously 'offended'. Ros0709 (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Like the various other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are apparently dumps from a University of Florida course. (cf. "About the author" at the end of this article). -- Fullstop (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC) ps: not likely a multiple offender, but apparently all SPA accounts of students of the same course.
 * Delete or move to user space. Like the other "An Annotated Bibliography" essays, these are personal notes. The editor is however apparently familiar with the subjects at hand, and should thus be encouraged to integrate the information from those essays into the appropriate articles. -- Fullstop (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes more sense. Wikipedia's been welcoming of editors introduced through course work-in this case they don't quite have the concept of "encyclopedia article" clear yet.Professor marginalia (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, original research. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:44, 20 April 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.