Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-bias curriculum

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 no consensus. W.marsh 18:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-bias curriculum

promo, how-to guide, original research, inherently POV, delete. KleenupKrew 10:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being Gramscian jibberjabber that could onle ever be POV. Eddie.willers 11:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure about this one. It would appear to be a POV and OR essay but it was well referenced which made me think twice. Judging from the high number of google results this would seeem to be a notable enough concept. Ydam 13:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and strong cleanup. The subject seems notable; the strongly POV text seems helpful, referenced, and useful to future editors. If there's some place to merge this to, I'd be open to suggestions. Smerdis of Tlön 14:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep and strong cleanup as per Smerdis. I found 36000 Ghits, FWIW. ---CH 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somewhere. If somewhere cannot be found, delete. In either case, salt the earth. The title is inherently "biased", if the article is at all specific, thereby violating WP:NPOV. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ghits don't handle hypenation at all well, so it would include "anti bias curriculum" which may not be the same thing. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have many articles with titles that accurately reflect how the suject is actually referred to, even if the phrasing itself isn't NPOV (for example, Healthy Forests Initiative). It's not POV for us to report on a notable subject that exists because of someone's POV. This article does need cleanup to make that distinction clear, though; we should report this POV rather than adopting it. Also, I'm sure there's conservative criticism of the idea, and that should be incorporated into the article, with attribution. JamesMLane t c 06:19, 23 June 2006 (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.