Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All but dissertation

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 no consensus. Borderlien keep/no consensus matter here Courcelles 05:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All but dissertation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTDIC, does not meet GNG. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a wealth of information on the internet about this. Many of the references concern sites that will help the PhD candidate finish his dissertation or write it for him. Also, various colleges and universities list their policies on the ABD (all but dissertation) candidates. I myself was in this category a few years and know firsthand it is a valid subject. Bill Pollard (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you "know firsthand" is a prime example of original research! Emeraude (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was was me relating my experience; it was not meant to be used as proof. Look at the rest of my arguments. Bill Pollard (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of your arguments don't really get the question we're asking here. No one's disputing that ABD is a real concept or a real phrase; the question is whether its notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry. A wealth of information is not the same as a wealth of reliable information. — Bdb484 (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A somewhat close call. When in doubt, I put quotation marks around it and do a Google search. I got 600,000 hits, indicating widespread usage of the term. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a wealth of information on the subject, so it passes WP:GNG. The article already goes well beyond a dictionary definition. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary def for a concept about which it's hard to conceive anything worthwhile could be said, [1] notwithstanding. It would be like having an article called Gathered enough signatures but hasn't turned in the nomination papers yet so as it stands he won't be on the ballot -- um, OK, yeah, got it. EEng (talk) 04:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.