Talk:Wyoming e Academy of Virtual Education

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 May 2012. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Schools Low‑importance

	Schools portal This article is related to WikiProject Schools, a collaborative effort to write quality articles about schools around the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.SchoolsWikipedia:WikiProject SchoolsTemplate:WikiProject Schoolsschool articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

United States: Wyoming Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Wyoming portal This article is supported by WikiProject Wyoming (assessed as Low-importance).

Comments[edit]

I've stubified the article, so as to avoid copyright infringment. Even so, as a government agency, its web site is "fair game." Bearian (talk) 22:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like a government agency to me (not a .edu or .gov site), but I might be mistaken. The site states at the bottom "All rights reserved. © 2004 eCollege", though that may refer to the use of eCollege's trademarks, etc. rather than the content. Still, I think the original was likely a copyright infringement. nneonneo ^talk 00:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]