Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School choice

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 nomination was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] School choice

Delete as POV fork of education policy education voucher and alternative education, this article is 100% advocacy with nary one criticism cited of the very controversial school choice concept. Homey 01:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep valuable article, I see no reason for deletion -- Librarianofages 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary POV fork. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is one of the oldest articles on Wikipedia, much older than education policy. Based on a reasonably thorough look at the article's history, nominator has made no attempt to contribute to the article, and sole contribution to discussion was to state his opinion of the article immediately prior to nominating for deletion. Article needs cleanup and POV examination, not deletion. Captainktainer * Talk 02:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The article is completely one-sided and pure advocacy. Can you find one criticism of the school choice concept in the article?Homey 02:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this is well written and the discussion on it is civil and looks like it's for the betterment of the article. --Geneb1955^Talk/_CVU 02:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unnecessary POV fork. I agree it's civil, and old. It's still an unneeded POV fork. Tychocat 02:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a POV fork of mostly education voucher and partly alternative education. It's like calling the abortion debate article the pro-choice movement or the pro-life movement and presenting only one side. Despite its age, it does not even have an "oppose" section to go along with the "support" section. Finally, its references are filled with think tanks, which, no matter whether they are liberal or conservative, only excel in producing garbage posing as reseach and analysis. They make industry trade associations look like reliable, impartial sources by comparison. -- Kjkolb 03:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Zos 04:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Wikipedia should not be used to advocate one position. Horribly NPOV article. Resolute 04:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but some one has to go through the edits made from April onwards. There was a criticism section, but that has blatantly been deleted. Please look at the edit history of a page before you put it up for AfD. -- Koffieyahoo 06:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. POV forking is when someone copy-pastes an article at a different title and starts editing it to make it present a different point of view. Such articles are usually extremely similar to the original and very newly created. I am absolutely not convinced that this article is a POV fork. First, this article was created on 13 September 2001, making it one of Wikipedia's oldest. If it does duplicate other articles, I think it is the other articles which are at fault, not this one. Second, there are sections here which I cannot find in either of the articles cited as being duplicates, for instance the section on magnet schools. Finally, neither education voucher or alternative education will cover that there are some school districts, such as Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools which have school choice even though the parents can choose to send their child to another "normal" school and not alternative education schools. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV Fork. -- GWO
• Keep. When was "article is currently POV" a reason for deletion? Edit it to add criticisms, don't delete it. Batmanand | Talk 13:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork and merge worthwhile content. TomTheHand 13:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, If I'm being blunt, the article is a complete disaster of POV pushing, poor writing, laughable attempts at forming arguments and pretty much reads like it was written by someone (or several people) who declined the choice to go to school. All of those problems though can be solved through Merciless editing. As Sjakkalle has stated above, this is a veryold article in Wikipedia terms and is not technically a POV fork. The best bet here is to go through the article and edit out or rewrite all the junk. This absolutely is a valid topic that can support a good article; it's just waiting for someone to come along and write one.--Isotope23 16:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Sjakkalle, it should be possible to present this in a balanced way. Yamaguchi先生 17:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep needs editing, but that is not a reason to delete. Sandy 00:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The first version of Education voucher had as its entire content "The topic of education vouchers is a quite distinct one from school choice, q.v." - on this evidence, the two are different topics, but if one is a fork, it isn't this one that is a year older than education voucher. Education voucher is also a daughter article of school choice. The first non-redirect version of Alternative education to contain anything more than a stub template (from January 2006) was "Alternate education is an umbrella term referring to a number of approahces to the education of children other than standard classrooms, such as Alternative schools and homeschooling." Again we see that that article is both newer and a different topic. Article is clearly not a fork. It is incomplete, it ignores forms of school choice such as that in the Boston, Massachusetts public schools where parents get to prioritize among existing public schools (as part of the desegregation effort), independently of the existence of charter and other private schools. If it is currently POV, that is not reason for deletion - it needs to be hopelessly and inevitably POV. This is clearly a topic about which a NPOV article could be written - so go write it. And as to the claim that it is entirely favorable, the "Criticism" section contains arguments against - it is the successor to the "Arguments Against" section that was created in March 2004. In my conclusion the only true portion of the nomination is "very controversial school choice concept" - it is neither a fork nor 100% advocacy. GRBerry 02:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rename as School voucher and merge any extra content from education voucher into it. "School voucher" is the neutral term; "school choice," like "death tax" and "right-to-work law," is a propaganda term. -- Mwalcoff 04:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep content but needs to be combined somehow with the myriad other articles about the same subject. --Aguerriero (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can understand people having a problem with the Support and Criticism section, but I spent a good amount of time creating the data and definitions part. AFAIK, no other entry in Wikipedia provides a definition of the different kinds of School Choice out there. One specific example would be of Tuition Tax Credits, which are different from Vouchers. Also, this article tries to provide pertinent examples of each kind of School Choice. By contrast, the Education Voucher doesnt even have a reference to the Milwaukee School Voucher program which is the largest such program in the USA. I am sorry if I am a litle defensive, but I think that the info (if not the Pro/Con sections) is valuable and unique. Ian Lewis 16:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep-POV can be clean up and it has useful information that would be a loss to delete.Agne27 05:30, 15 July 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.