Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online colleges


 * 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 Redirect to Distance education (non-admin closure). It should be noted that merge and redirect is a perfectly acceptable outcome of an AfD discussion. RFBailey (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Online colleges

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

Article is a United States-centric content fork from Distance education and Diploma mill, with a strong dose of "how to guide" included. The article content is very thin, and I think part of it is original research. It has one very solid source, which I copied into the Distance education article before posting this. Because the article scope is covered by those other articles and Category:Distance education institutions, and the article is practically an orphan, it won't be missed. Orlady (talk) 05:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS - I think the page should be replaced with a redirect to Distance education. I could do that myself, but I think it best to have discussion of this article first. It has existed since May 2007. --Orlady (talk) 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Distance education per nom; that page is more thorough in its scope, and seems to be pretty much the same thing. No valuable information would be lost should such a redirect occur. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —Orlady (talk) 05:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep A major educational innovation over the last few decades. Their validity/invalidity has helped to make them even more notable. Clearly notable. Twenty Years 06:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom, currently written more like a How-to than an encyclopedia article. -Drdisque (talk) 07:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - United States topics and ameri-centric topics are not inherently not notable, theres 300 million of us and online education is a major and separate concept from distance education. There is a lot of research and availability and massive notability of the subject. Rewrite maybe, delete I think not! Strong Keep I say!CholgatalK! 09:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - No justification for delete. MrPrada (talk) 19:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect per nom, no need for duplication TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 19:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Notability is not the issue. No one here has suggested that the topic of online higher education is not notable. The main issue with this article is redundancy (also, there are other problems with the article). Online higher education is the main focus of the article Distance education. For the record, other article names that already redirect to Distance education include Virtual campus, Internet learning, Distance learning, Distance course, Correspondence course, Correspondence education, Correspondence school, Open Universities, Online Master's Program, Online college, Online university and Online universities, Online learning university, Distance university, Distance Learning Education and Degrees, Open and distance learning, Remote learning, and Tuition outsourcing. --Orlady (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Use as a redirect page. Likely search term. And the (talk) 23:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Distance education - no loss of info will happen. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  12:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep distance Education is a very much broader topic, going back many decades. There is certainly enough specific material available for an article. The present article, though, does need to be much expanded. DGG (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect per nom. Orlady, Unless I'm counting wrong, you've now got seven editors supporting merge/redirect and four who want keep. I call that a consensus and I encourage you to take the action. Noroton (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I don't believe I should be the one to close this AfD. --Orlady (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable and sourced. Perhaps it could be merged with something, but AfD nomination is not the way to discuss merging.Biophys (talk) 03:00, 8 March 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.