Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extended essay

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 redirect to IB Diploma Programme. Consensus that this topic is not notable. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended essay[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a type of essay that students write for a specific exam. Sourced exclusively to WP:SPS for what looks like over ten years. jp×g 09:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. jp×g 09:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. jp×g 09:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 09:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a mechanical drive-by nomination of an article that existed for over 10 years because it has existed for over 10 years. It points out a problem with the article but it doesn't appear that the nominator has made any effort to fix this. Now, it's our explicit policy that articles may be imperfect and 99% of our 6+ million articles are less than good. The supposed problem here seems trivially easy to fix. If sources are wanted then just consult the numerous academic papers such as The influence of student learning characteristics on progress through the extended essay: A component of the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme or Student perceptions of the value of the International Baccalaureate extended essay in preparing for university studies. See WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTCLEANUP and WP:SOFIXIT. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because it's existed for ten years with bad sources -- it's because better sources do not seem to exist. You mention two research papers (which have 33 citations between the both of them), but not a reason why one component of the exam warrants a separate article from the rest of the exam (there are not separate articles for the SAT essay, the AP exam essay, or ACT essay, for example). The reason I mention that its content was cribbed entirely from SPS is to note that the article isn't the product of researching and bringing together independent coverage; it's someone retyping a product brochure into Wikipedia. This is not even a case of "a very effortfully-written article going to the dogs because it failed GNG"; there's not much to merge into the main International Baccalaureate article, and even the sources you've provided would do better there than in an attempt at a standalone article. jp×g 13:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to IB Diploma Programme. There are no good independent sources cited in this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to IB Diploma Programme. It's not our place to provide the rubric for a component of a curriculum, sourced only to the curriculum's website. All of the IB articles e.g. IB Group 5 subjects have the same problem and should be trimmed and merged too. Reywas92^Talk 01:25, 16 December 2020 (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.