Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In-service program


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

In-service program

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Platitudinous dictionary article. Devoid of useful content Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The nomination is devoid of reasons to delete. The closest it comes is the word "dictionary" but that just seems to mean "short" as the article has no focus on a particular word qua word.  But our actual policy explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." Andrew D. (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep This is not a simple dictionary term but as Andrew Davidson pointed out, it is a perfectly valid stub article. Clearly a notable topic.  Sorting through the many Google scholar results that mention it, I see there have been studies done on how it effects teachers and students in the classrooms.     D r e a m Focus  03:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What would be in such an article which is not adequately covered in Continuing education?Rathfelder (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Since that article exist, just do a merge discussion. No reason to try to delete this.  Remember, deletion should be the last resort.   D r e a m Focus  05:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything to merge.Rathfelder (talk) 08:03, 6 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.