Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cruelty of Really Teaching Computer Science

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 was KEEP. JIP | Talk 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic. This article has a long and sad history of trying to be cleaned up, and I think the reason they have all failed is that it just isn't a good candidate for an encyclopedia entry. It reads more like a review or critical analysis essay. There is only one reference, and that reference really has little to do with the subject of the article itself. Nearly every sentence is marked with {{fact}}, but I don't see how there could even be a source that validates any of these statements. Let us end the madness and delete this article, merging any meager scraps of verfiable fact (if there are any to be found) into E. W. Dijkstra. -- Rangek 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the ideas discussed in this article appear in numerous Dijkstra papers and could even be considered his life's work. They should be covered at his article or a spinoff thereof. Gazpacho 03:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subject of the article is notable. It's a bit of an orphan but that's not enough reason to delete. - Richardcavell 03:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete academic snobbery soapbox --Xrblsnggt 03:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The "academic snobbery" merely reflects the style of Dijkstra, whose significance is not in doubt. Gazpacho

  No, the "academic snobbery" in this case belongs strictly to the article. Articles about "academic snobbery" don't have to be so.... snobby. Rangek 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an essay. Probably merge the observation in first paragraph into E. W. Dijkstra, if it isn't already there. -- Koffieyahoo 04:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, violates WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Michael 06:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dijkstra is important and the article of his that this WP article is about is important. I agree in part with Gazpacho that it could be described in E. W. Dijkstra but I would have thought that this is already a spin-off of that so I do not understand that alternative. It also looks to me as if the {{fact}} tags are not correct because the point they address appears to be covered in the Dijkstra article that is the subject of this WP article. --Bduke 08:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dijkstra's views are notable even if controversial. The article started off as a rant, but that has largely been cleaned up. Leibniz 10:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the article has obviously been significantly cleaned up since the above author's argued for deletion. It's now actually pretty decent and is a subject of extreme encyclopaedic importance written with good style. WilyD 12:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you figure that? The article hasn't been touched since I nominated it. Rangek 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, it was the only way I could account for the discrepency between the comments above and the appearence of the article. WilyD 14:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep needs sources and tidying but it should be of value when this is done Localzuk ^(talk) 14:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My question is, "How?". I believe verifiable sources do not exist for any of the statements in the article. Rangek 14:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, looks like a valid article. JIP | Talk 15:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Localzuk's comments. Most of the statements flagged {{fact}} are verifiable -- they should lack sources. Article is clearly in need of improvement, but I fail to see how it is non-encyclopedic. Scorpiondollprincess 18:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean, "should" lack sources? JIP | Talk 19:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well-known essay by a very notable (in his field) individual. Should be possible to verify enough information from reliable sources (just delete any that can't be). Article lacking in sources but seems OK otherwise. - makomk 20:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree it is a well known essay by a very well known person. But what does the article SAY about the essay? What (useful things) CAN it say? Rangek 20:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Roughly what it says now (only properly referenced). The article seems to be an accurate summary of the essay and its actual impact, it's severely just lacking in sources. (Unfortunately, I have no idea where to look for them...) - makomk 17:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, quite notable. —Nightstallion (?) 12:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - an article paraphrasing a single paper is hardly encyclopaedic. If it summarised and referenced critiques then fine. But it doesn't. BlueValour 03:53, 13 August 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.