Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Notability isn't in question, NPOV concerns appear to have been addressed, no further deletion arguments have been put forth. Shimeru (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:SOAPBOX, article created by sockpuppet of year-banned user ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I don't see anything overtly POV in the article, and if there is something I'm missing, then it should be fixed. I agree that block evasion is completely unacceptable, but if the article is taken separate from the creator, then it appears to be a notable federal program with independent, reliable sources that cover it. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The soapboxing I saw was "The program was approved in 2004 under the Republican presidential administration of George W. Bush with support from Republican congressional majorities, and was allowed to expire in 2009 by a Congress controlled by Democratic Party majorities and an end of funding in the budget proposals of the Barack Obama administration." If it hadn't been block evasion, I probably would have just dropped that line, but between the block evasion, the lack of sourcing for most of the article, and the lack of incoming links that weren't added by CoM, deletion seemed best to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rewritten a good deal of it in an attempt to cut out the POV and partisan shenanigans that were going on. I profousely apologize for claiming not to see POV before, as something as ridiculous as putting (D) after someone's name should have tipped me off right away. That being said, I have tried to combat it, and stand by my keep, as I think the first sentence of the article gives its notability as a first-of-its-kind federal program. It would seem also that where the sourcing seems sparse, the citation was meant to cite the whole paragraph. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The soapboxing I saw was "The program was approved in 2004 under the Republican presidential administration of George W. Bush with support from Republican congressional majorities, and was allowed to expire in 2009 by a Congress controlled by Democratic Party majorities and an end of funding in the budget proposals of the Barack Obama administration." If it hadn't been block evasion, I probably would have just dropped that line, but between the block evasion, the lack of sourcing for most of the article, and the lack of incoming links that weren't added by CoM, deletion seemed best to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep of sufficient permanent historic interest. Conflict over the wording of an article is not reason to delete it, and it seems not to have the earlier problems. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 10 May 2010 (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.