Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inclusive classroom (0th nomination)

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 - kept

Inclusive classroom

Unencylopedic, POV, research paper. Delete this and all associated images. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 02:04, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, badly formatted but there is some good content. - SimonP 02:40, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Parts of the existing article are probably copyvios. If the article is cleaned up, I would change to keep. DCEdwards1966 03:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: It's a massive c&p from other sites. I don't have a problem with discussing mainstreaming in general or even the concept by this particular name, but it's entirely unencyclopedic now -- written very much in EdSpeak with EdCadence. It's an advocacy page. If it is radically cleaned up by the end of voting, I would change my vote, but the clean up would be severe. Geogre 03:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, send to cleanup. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 06:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep--and cleanup. Article addresses a significant topic in education. Needs NPOVing, however. Jacob1207 21:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and send to cleanup. Valid topic. Let's try to get it cleaned up before we rush into deletion. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 21:45, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete this codswallop. Good example of why north American education majors shouldn't be allowed to teach innocent children. Wyss 21:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Please avoid personal attacks. We're voting on the article, not the author or the profession. Joyous 23:42, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Where is the personal attack? I was attacking the author's article (codswallop), and the current state of public education in the states (brilliant in some places but largely dismal): The article is clear evidence the author has been let down by her teachers (whom I guess I'm attacking, but still not personally)... too bad she can't demand a refund on her tuition. Wyss 00:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously encyclopedic topic, not even an awful article (at least now). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:36, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep Ok, I've corrected around a dozen remaining grammar/syntax errors, tightened up the language and generally made the article more encyclopedic. I guess I was distracted by the abysmal writing (I hope the original author won't be teaching English anytime soon... sorry if that sounds like a personal attack but my remark is sincere). Wyss 01:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously encyco enclyco suitable. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk ]] 01:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 15:45, 8 Dec 2004 (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.