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.
Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider:
Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978).
Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work. DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
United States. Office of Education (1974).
Innovative Education Practices: 1974. Innovative Education Practices. The Office. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar.
[1], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources.
James500 (
talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per
WP:HEY. Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing
WP:GNG.
Sal2100 (
talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: While I'd love to see more sources, especially from non-government entities, to further cement notability, this does pass notability per NA.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak and reluctant keep. While I question the scope of this program and therefore wonder how notable it really is, it does appear to pass based on available information. If it really is a program affecting numerous areas, this article needs a lot more information. My Google search for this institute did not impress me but did show there is some legitimacy to it.
DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 20:22, 29 April 2024 (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.
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.
Comment – Source searches are demonstrating that this may meet notability requirements. I have copy edited the article to denote that it is an educational program, rather than an organization. Additionally, regarding the nomination, the degree to which a program is used has no bearing on notability for topics. Below are a few sources to consider:
Park, J.S.; United States. Office of Education (1978).
Education in Action: 50 Ideas that Work. DHEW publication ; no. (OE) 77-01018. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
United States. Office of Education (1974).
Innovative Education Practices: 1974. Innovative Education Practices. The Office. Retrieved April 22, 2024.
Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in books and periodical articles in Google Books and Google Scholar.
[1], for example, is a very detailed article by a freelance writer. There are a lot of other sources.
James500 (
talk) 21:37, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk! 23:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep. Changing from my earlier !vote of delete per
WP:HEY. Sources provided above by Northamerica1000 and James500 make a convincing case for passing
WP:GNG.
Sal2100 (
talk) 15:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: While I'd love to see more sources, especially from non-government entities, to further cement notability, this does pass notability per NA.
Aaron Liu (
talk) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Weak and reluctant keep. While I question the scope of this program and therefore wonder how notable it really is, it does appear to pass based on available information. If it really is a program affecting numerous areas, this article needs a lot more information. My Google search for this institute did not impress me but did show there is some legitimacy to it.
DoczillaOhhhhhh, no! 20:22, 29 April 2024 (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.