Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Core Curriculum

Core Curriculum was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP

It's a listing of required courses followed by a reading list. The courses material is already in Columbia College, and the reading list isn't something we should have (Wikipedia is not a general knowledge base). -- Cyrius|✎ 03:43, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I'm withdrawing my nomination. While I still think my initial assessment was correct, Ctrl_build's efforts to address the major deficiencies have shown that there is in fact an actual article hiding in there. -- Cyrius|✎ 23:03, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• KEEP I was planning to expand after finals. Most of the indivduals at columbia university who work on wikipedia articles are very busy right now. The core curriculum became the framework for many similar educational models throughout the nation, and then became contested against later in its history, as it became seen as a curriculum of DWM. The expansion of required courses in response to criticism of Columbia is a move contrary to most schools, which have instead have gone for a broad base currucilum in the opening years with less specific requirments required of all freshmen, where columbia, to address concerns has added more, a move that is contraversial to some, and supported by others. The core curriculm is one type of learning, in direct contrast to an extended curriculum. The last edit of this article did not show that core curriculum is a phenomena, that most colleges accepted for around 50 years, and few colleges kept in recent years with changes in accademic styles. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 05:09, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If the article had said that instead of being a lit class syllabus and half a degree plan, I wouldn't have listed it. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Notable. Perfectly OK to start something by copying out part of an existing article. Ctrl_build looks like a serious contributor, if he/she says he/she will expand, I'll trust that. Keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you for compliment. Now I have to get back to studying. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 20:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, now that we see where it's going. Samaritan 08:55, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Wyss 19:11, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Extreme keep. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 19:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, merge into Columbia College if you must. At the very least rename to something sensible. --fvw* 07:56, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
  • Edited content no longer columbia centric, but its so pov, I wish I had more time to work on it right now, alas I do not. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 22:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with fvw, with one slight tweak; merge content and redirect to Columbia College. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 17:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Edited content no longer columbia centric, but its so pov, I wish I had more time to work on it right now, alas I do not. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 22:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Merge Content and almost every Columbia page to the article on Columbia University. FIRST: Columbia doesn't own the term Core Curriculum. Second: Does every sub-school at a University require it's own page? Surely one large article would preferable to 30 small ones. All it takes someone who knows how to properly edit. Merge content from all of these—Clubs and organizations of Columbia University, Columbia Business School, Columbia College of Columbia University, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University School of Social Work, Columbia University Tunnels, Core Curriculum, Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, Go Ask Alice!, List of Columbia University people, Teachers College, Union Theological Seminary into Columbia University. Well, maybe not Union, since like Barnard they are semi-independent. How much could someone possibly write about these? The Category for Columbia should link the people (alumni, faculty, nobel laureates, etc.) and events connected to Columbia, and not be an umbrella page for articles on every sub-school. Columbia seems to be the only university on Wikipedia with enough articles to qualify a term like ColumbiaCruft. —ExplorerCDT 18:48, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Edited content no longer columbia centric, but its so pov, I wish I had more time to work on it right now, alas I do not. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 22:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. All material that is even arguably encyclopedic is already in Columbia University. --Korath^会話 19:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC) Now neutral. --Korath^会話 01:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Edited content no longer columbia centric, but its so pov, I wish I had more time to work on it right now, alas I do not. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 22:31, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll help after Christmas (also been busy with finals). As for the proposal to merge all Columbia-related articles, perhaps it is just because there are many editors knowledgeable about Columbia? Mat334 12:08, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Know other than you, of two. Wikipeida is an expansionary encycolpedia. You cannot keep things contained in articles. Do you go to Columbia? --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 17:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.