Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of education program failures


 * 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 of the debate was delete. DS 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

List of education program failures
essay that fails NPOV Nuttah68 07:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as turgid mess that fails WP:NOR, NPOV and WP:NOT. More suitable for an op ed piece than here.  RGTraynor 08:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per RGTraynor, problems with NPOV, WP:NOT & WP:OR. -- blue 520  08:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. WP:OR and WP:NPOV. couldn't really be anything else. Ydam 10:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Zero references, full of original research, fails to be written in a neutral point of view and isn't notable.--Auger Martel 10:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inherently POV. David L Rattigan 10:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, add to list of failed Wikipedia articles. - Motor (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Not suitable for Wikipedia. Inner Earth 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. I'd say the topic certainly is notable and that the author does a good job of mentioning many of the sub-topics important in the ongoing debate/disilusionment with education and its reform. Having said that, I must agree that it's a POV op-ed piece and not an encyclopedia entry:mere mentioning isn't enough to be a Wiki-worthy article. The style is jaunting and chatty in a way that works well for a newspaper or blog, but encyclopedias need to aim for something drier and more neutral. I'd like to the author (or others) produce something on this topic but to save it from being deleted as either POV or OR (original research), it'd need more citations from the beginning.  Inter lingua  talk 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete What a POV stinker. Even if NPOV'ed, I can't see any non-arbitrary inclusion criteria. ~ trialsanderrors 20:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. agreed with Interlingua regarding the flagging up of some issues that sound as if they could well be documented in the relevant education pieces. however the rest reads like an ex-educationalist holding forth at great length on his "theory" in a bar somewhere W guice 21:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hopelessly POV, and even if it was NPOV, I don't see any purpose for it in Wikipedia. Kariià 21:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete cosign with Interlingua. Danny Lilithborne 00:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete the very premise encapsulated in the page title is utterly somebody's own POV and unsalvageable. Jammo (SM247) 01:11, 18 June 2006 (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.