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 delete. Orphan status strongly argues for being insufficiently encyclopedic. Daniel Case 06:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graduates who cannot read their diplomas[edit]

Graduates who cannot read their diplomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Nonencyclopedic topic. Article is about a phrased used once in a speech. Apparently article was created (in September 2006) to support POV-rich discussions of education reform issues. Article is an orphan. It was linked from one other article, but I have removed that link (from Washington Assessment of Student Learning) because it added no value. FYI: I am proposing this for an AfD instead of speedy-delete or prod because (1) it was earlier proposed/rejected for speedy deletion and (2) it is unlikely that anyone potentially interested in the subject looks at the article (it was created by a removed sockpuppet). orlady 14:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! Once again, the template did not work for me... Please fix!--orlady 14:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trivia at best, citing a political speech as a source, nonencyclopedic as per nom....--Javits2000 15:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence shown that this has spread as a catchphrase beyond its source in a political speech in Idaho. And I was so hoping for a list! - Smerdis of Tlön 16:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This phrase is mentioned "out of context". It could possibly be mentioned in a larger article about education reform, but it should not stand alone. Shalom ^Hello 16:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if it can be expanded and improved. --164.107.222.23 17:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Author was POV pushing on several topics, the phrase is non-notable on its own. --Dual Freq 18:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - title is viable WP:DAFT material, too. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone - interestingly enough, a large percentage of graduates literally can't read their diplomas because a) they're blind and the diploma isn't in Braille, or b) the diploma is in Latin or (in my case) Gaelic, and the graduate doesn't read those languages. --Charlene 05:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete. There's already an article about literacy, right? And the sources are more useful and less political than the governor of Idaho, yeah? Then this article is redundant. Kripto 10:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, most of the rest, and especially Charlene. Carlossuarez46 17:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not convinced 1 in 5 graduates can't read their diploma is accurate. Regardless, the statement was probably not of sufficient notability to warrant an article. Cedars 03:48, 7 July 2007 (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.