Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classroom games (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Biblio worm  01:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Classroom games
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Like before, there's plenty of original research, and little of any encyclopaedic value. Adam9007 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT, and salt after the repeated re-creation. The previously deleted version had no references, and wasn't fully discussed (the AfD ended early after a speedy deletion per WP:CSD) so that may be enough to save this from G4 deletion. And it seems likely that in the academic literature on teaching strategies there is published material on games as an educational strategy. But this is basically a personal reflection sourced to some web sites, together with strong assertions about the effectiveness of this strategy that are completely unsourced. It gives the impression of existing only as an excuse for linking one of its sources (presumably the teachhub one) rather than to accurately reflect established knowledge. If the subject has any notability, it isn't reflected in the content. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and start over, I'm afraid. The topic of Teaching games I'd think would be notable with plenty of research over the years, but this opinion-rich, fact-poor article, with what looks to be a good dollop of Conflict of Interest into the bargain, is in no way a plausible attempt at such an article. Let's get rid of it and await an article which at least tries to cover the field. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2015 (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.