Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classroom bingo


 * 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   speedy deleted by WereSpielChequers (CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Classroom bingo

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete something made up in school one day apparently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we all played some form of bingo in grade school to help with various subjects. The problem is sourcing this. I think it would belong better in an article about teaching methods. Beach drifter (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 19:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Topic has received coverage in secondary, reliable sources e.g. . -Atmoz (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:MADEUP.  Lugnuts  (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete A student's thesis is not a reliable secondary source. Wperdue (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * That depends. The 2 sources above are graduate level thesis about using classroom bingo as a pedagogical tool, and as such, I consider them to be much more reliable than 2 equivalent sources that are reported, for instance, in the mainstream media. -Atmoz (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. If notability here depends on two theses (there's one other mention in Google Scholar, and trivial, passing mentions here in Google News), well, that's not good. Then it's either cutting-edge research being done at Rowan, or it's really not significant enough to have been written about in the usual kinds of sources. It's not notable. The author could have done us all a favor by doing their homework first and by organizing that dense prose in proper paragraphs. Less classroom bingo (and fewer cliches--"ever popular," "fastest growing trend," "taken to different levels"), more grammar and style. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:MADEUP. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep although I will have to see if there are any sources - Bingo is as a classroom aid in a children's TEFL environment -both in language schools and in JHS. I do agree, at the moment it is a crappy article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.