Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US exam review


 * 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 CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 03:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

US exam review
Listcruft. The article is a listing of vocabulary terms, and Wikipedia is not a list of definitions. —C.Fred (talk) 15:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC) Keep This is an invaluable tool to reach like-minded articles. This article is still a work in progress, and factual/typographic errors will be fixed. This article WILL include narratives when completed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.187.207.221 (talk • contribs).
 * Strong Delete. Probably a teacher using Wikipedia as a webhost. — Cuivi é  nen T, Saturday, 20 May 2006 @ 16:24 UTC
 * Which would be funny considering the part on the Oklahoma land run is wrong (See Talk:Oklahoma Land Race). Ash Lux 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's probably exactly what it is. For that reason, I would hope the deleting admin will userfy the article, should the decision be to delete it from the main article space. —C.Fred (talk) 00:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Userification isn't really appropriate. See the appropriate section of WP:NOT: "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they are used for information relevant to working on the encyclopedia." Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True. My thought was, rather than trash it outright on the original author, give him a chance to copy it off so he can post it somewhere appropriate. I don't hold faith that he's watching the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There doesn't even really appear to be a single author. There's a registered user who created the page, of course, but most of the content was added by a bunch of anons. Probably classmates... Zetawoof(&zeta;) 04:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Conceded. Especially when I saw "curriculum" misspelled; as a former instructor, that one really grated my nerves. —C.Fred (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to List of United States history (or some such). Strip out "exam"-based terms. It's a very convenient overview. Tyrenius 17:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a very scattered list, trying to accomplish too much without enough depth. A category could better capture the main points, and a good narrative on some of the historical periods would name out most of the minor names. Let's not even mention that it needs vetted for accuracy—a quick skim revealed one serious factual error (date of Carter's presidency) and a minor nomenclature error ("Texans" where "Texians" is correct usage). —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per C.Fred. I like the idea of such a list, but I agree this isn't good enough. Tyrenius 17:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a study guide, nor is it freespace. This is just a crazy collection of terms and nothing more. -- Kicking222 17:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I prodded this as "WP:NOT a study guide", which still holds. Oppose a move to "List of US History", as such a list would be unbelievably long and utterly unmaintainable. A category for US history articles already exists at Category:History of the United States. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 19:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and did I mention that the article is unbelievably long, at 160 kilobytes (5 times the nominal limit)? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT... Ash Lux 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete--Peta 02:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not the site to be hosting this information, I agree with Zetawoof. - Runch 19:43, 25 May 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.