Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning at Home and in the Hospital - LeHo


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Learning at Home and in the Hospital - LeHo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. reason was "While not a copyright violation (the source is licenced for onward use) this is unsuitable as an article for the many reasons flagged at the head. In brief summary of this it is unreferenced WP:OR."

Since then the issues list has grown substantially. This needs to go, and go at AfD, in order to set a precedent against recreation of the same material. Fiddle  Faddle  16:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 16:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's possible that LeHo is notable, e.g., see (and no, I don't know if this is a reliable source). However, the current incarnation of the article has got to go. Lacking any independent sources, it reads more like a sales brochure than anything else. Should someone like to actually find the requisite reliable sources, and then describe LeHo, more power to them. Until then, delete it. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that Draft:Home and Hospital Education (HHE) is waiting in the wings. It will not be approved by any WP:AFC review, but it is well to be aware that more of the same is waiting. Fiddle   Faddle  14:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This actually now does contains copyright violations, as the source is licensed under CC-BY 4.0, and the Foundation Legal have determined that this license is not backwards compatible with CC-BY-SA 3.0. Crow  Caw  22:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no mention anywhere of what the incompatibility might be. Any reference for that? It remains listed at File copyright tags/Free licenses. Probably the difficulty is " Those who reproduce the work must attribute it in the manner specified by the author or licensor" (from Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0)/ This is likely to cause considerable confusion, as I suspect authors will pick this tag not realizing its different, and should be given the opportunity to correct it by relicensing.  DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Here was the section on Moonriddengirl's page about this (towards the bottom):. Crow  Caw  22:34, 20 October 2014 (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.