Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario rubric

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 and redirect‎ to Academic grading in Canada#Ontario. I have deleted it given the copyvio concerns raised and because the content is similar rendering there no need to preserve it for further merging. Star Mississippi 22:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario rubric

[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)

Contested PROD. The content in the article is already essentially at Academic grading in Canada and I'm not sure a redirect is specific enough to be useful, as 'Ontario rubric" is somewhat of a vague search term. Thoughts? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Likely too technical a term for wiki. It exists apparently [1] but I don't see any discussion of it outside of these types of sites for tutors or teachers. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could not find any proper new coverage on this subject.Bradelykooper (talk) 06:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Academic_grading_in_Canada#Ontario. The subject is already covered there there seems to be duplication so this might end up being more of a redirect than a merge. I don't identify any potential harm in retaining a redirect so we should retain it per standard merge process and WP:CHEAP. Delete arguments above are not taking WP:ATD into consideration. ~Kvng (talk) 15:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kvng: I considered ATD before I even prodded it, I don't think it's applicable in this instance. Please don't assume I'm not taking such things into consideration. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, yes you did and I shared my thoughts on that as you requested. I still think it would be helpful to get additional clarity from the others advocating for delete why a merge or redirect is not a reasonable WP:ATD in this case. ~Kvng (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to disagree, but I was a bit miffed that you were making assumptions about what I have or have not considered. Thank you for apologizing. To expand a bit on what I've already said, I mentioned why I thought a merge wasn't applicable in the prod rationale (This content is solely cited to primary sources and the content there does not appear to be mergeable). Then there's the as-of-yet unmentioned concern that most of this content is actually close paraphrasing at best. I admit to being hesitant to remove even clear copyvio content in the midst of an AfD when I'm involved in the matter. Merges work best when the content in question is actually viable, adequately sourced, and not duplicative. Redirects may be cheap but there are also reasons to delete them. Rubrics are not exclusive to the assessment rubrics used by Ontario schools, so I think a redirect would be a bit vague and obscure at the current title (#8). There aren't really reliable sources using this exact phrase to even describe it this way. ~~If the copyvio content is actually deleted, it wouldn't even be mentioned in the target article,~~ and that in itself would be a reason to not have a redirect (I've seen this argument a lot at RFD). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that said, "Ontario rubric" isn't that much of a stretch compared to the official name for the assessment rubric, given that it is a rubric used in Ontario. So maybe my concerns about it being vague/obscure don't meet the enough threshold. On the off chance a reader typed this in, they probably wouldn't be terribly surprised if they got redirected. There is still the issue of the copyvio content though. I did do a basic search for sources and I'm having trouble finding anything that's independent and reliable that could be used to write replacement content about the rubric at the proposed target. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 12:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Academic_grading_in_Canada#Ontario - I'm not sure why this wouldn't be applicable - and it's a well-used page, averaging 10,000 views a month, in months that are not summer. Which implies that people are looking at the page when school is in session. It's a very specific search term - not vague. Perhaps User:OakTree could review their delete. For some context, I have a child in high school, and I'm surprised how often I hear her used "rubric" in conversation (usually when going on about her teachers being off-topic) when relating to her courses - so it's a common enough term among the younger generation. Nfitz (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is worth mentioning but not in article on its own. WizardGamer775 (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect given it fails notability but appears to be useful as pointed out above. microbiologyMarcus ^{[petri dish·growths]} 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MicrobiologyMarcus: You do realize that there isn't anything to merge, right? I'm slightly concerned no one else seems to be concerned about the copyright violations issue. Maybe I'm missing the forest for the trees somehow, but a lot of the content at Ontario rubric is an exact copy of content used elsewhere. I'm not sure why this is is somehow okay? I was a student in Ontario that used to see these rubrics on a regular basis. It's jarring to see the exact wording replicated here. It's possible I'm making some fundamental mistake here, but it really would put my mind at ease if someone addressed my concerns head on before this AfD closes. A redirect !vote makes sense to me, but a merge does not. These don't have to go together. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2024 (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.