Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master's degree in North America
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 and rename to List of Master's degrees in North America. Sandstein 23:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Master's degree in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Subjective list on a subject that is too broad to ever be completely or satisfactorily covered. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 10:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see anything subjective about the list. The descriptions of some of the entries might be subjective, but that can be fixed by editing. I also disagree that the subject is too broad; there must be a finite (and relatively manageable) number of Master's degrees in North America. --Itub 12:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, there aren't. That's the problem. A university can award a Master's degree on any subject it likes. Coming up with a finite list of a infinite topic is fruitless. Plus different universities criteria for a Master's program differ. It already includes notable omissions, such as Master's degrees in Computer Science, to name one. An article with such a title could discuss Master's degrees in North America in general (such as general requirements), but nothing specific since they differ from college to college. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not sure whether this should be kept or not. If it is kept, it's at the wrong name; compare Master's degree in Europe, which actually includes significant discussion of the topic. This article is actually a list and should be named appropriately (i.e., List of Master's degrees in North America). Furthermore, much of the "content" in this article is trivial in nature: "Master of Music is a one year full time or two to four year applied degree in the field of music," is nothing more than a dicdef and doesn't say anything encyclopedic about it. Many of the entries are almost identical; just replace the two instances of "music" with any other subject area. Still, I'm not prepared to say this article definitely needs to go. Powers T 13:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and let it develop. Let's see if this can go somewhere. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - I havent got any objection to each entry on that page having its own Article and being in Category:Master's degrees(Then at least a "GO/Search" will find it), but, to have 1 Article simply regurgitating what every Article in that category already says, on their own Article page, is pointless. All links to this Article should be redirected to Category:Master's degrees. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 19:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as List of Master's degrees in North America and be tagged a list, but the explanations need to be change as many schools have different standards; another option is to expand on the article as a whole by discussing the history of Master's degree and accreditation and fixing the entries again as stated. As the article is now, it is a poorly written list.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 19:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename into a list per Powers and Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC.--Lenticel (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a list. I note that it seem no longer strictly limited to north america. DGG (talk) 03:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to a list. To be frank, if the list was nominated for deletion I'm not entirely sure how I'd feel about it. There are lists of degrees at several places on WP, often within better articles. The Europeans M.S. degrees page seems worthwhile. JJL 14:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename as list per Powers, Tanner & Lentice DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 02:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is a lot of good information that should be kept, even if the page needs to be restructured or changed to be good. Wikipedia is continuously a work in progress, deleting a something because it has a long way to go doesn't make sense, and is a bad attitude. If people had that attitude at Wikipedia's inception, it would never have become what it is today. Phasmatisnox 17:35, 2 October 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.