Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connections-based learning


 * 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. Because there is clearly a high urgency for this to be closed by lots of very worried editors LOL Missvain (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Connections-based learning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I did some cleanup work on Connections-based learning today, then I went looking for better references and couldn't find any. Then I realized that the article subject does not meet the general notability guidelines. There are a few articles about the subject in local news sources and in blogs that I had never heard of. There is a self-published book, a self-published website, and self-published videos, all by Sean Robinson, the subject's creator. Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and its creator is nonexistent. I wanted this to be notable and was sad to nominate it for deletion. Biogeographist (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Connections-based learning is an approach to teaching used around the globe. Independent articles stating its use in Canada, US, Nigeria, Norway, Israel, Cambodia, and China support its notability. The approach is either quoted in or corroborated by current research. The article has been updated to reflect CBL supported in Krutka and Carano's research in the Journal of Social Studies Education Research. - Sean Robinson, the creator of CBL Serobinson01 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Connections-Based Learning is a book, a method, and a globally recognized approach to navigating 21st learning in new and novel ways. In addition to the research cited above, it is a unique methodology put into practice on a daily basis and shared frequently through social media and keynotes by educators around the world. Connections-Based Learning is also one of the first and only pedagogical frameworks available that explicitly connects student learning to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals; not only is Connections-Based learning worthy of a Wikipedia entry, it's valuable for the benefit of humanity. Matt Murrie (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Murrie (talk • contribs) 22:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC) — Matt Murrie (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: Note that, the previous commenter, is a new single-purpose account who created an account today and made one edit to Connections-based learning and to this deletion discussion, and he may be connected to the subject (he included  markup in his comment, like Sean Robinson, which is curious—if there has been off-wiki communication between Matt and Sean, the creator of CBL, they would do well to disclose it). Connections-Based Learning is indeed a book as Matt said, but I noted above that it is a self-published book (see WP:RSSELF), and the book is held by a grand total of one library in WorldCat—not an impressive distribution for a book that was published a few years ago. Biogeographist (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Confirming that I have had off-wiki communication with and encouraged him to contribute to the article and the AFD section. Serobinson01 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Remember that the issue here is not whether CBL is "good", "beneficial", or "worthy" of being more widely known—I agree that it appears to be all of that. The issue here is Wikipedia's Notability guideline, which is based on the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not based on testimonials from a handful of people who are connected to the subject. The notability of the package called CBL is the issue, not the notability of the various elements of the package such as (to quote the article lead) "online and offline connections with students, experts, organizations, the community, and classrooms around the globe" (e.g., as in dialogic learning), "contacting and interacting with others inside and outside the class" (e.g., as in service-learning), and "giving students a 'real-world' experience" (e.g., as in experiential learning), all of which are also done apart from CBL. If there were a single non-self-published book devoted entirely to CBL, or even a single rigorously peer-reviewed article devoted entirely to CBL in a major journal, the subject would likely pass notability and I wouldn't have bothered to nominate it for deletion. A handful of self-published sources, non-peer-reviewed blog posts, and brief mentions doesn't cut it. Biogeographist (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: IGI Global is publishing a book called Paradigm Shifts in 21st Century Teaching and Learning in April 2020. They are devoting a whole chapter to connections-based learning. Here is a quote: "Connectedness is essential to human growth and learning. This chapter presents an analysis on Connections-based learning from four distinct frameworks: Intrapersonal, interpersonal, interdisciplinary, and media-based." This is significant coverage and independent of the subject. Serobinson01 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Citing a chapter in a book to be published by IGI Global does not necessarily help the case for notability; IGI Global is a controversial publisher that has been called a "rogue book publisher" in It is hard to discern whether a book from this publisher has had rigorous peer review or is vanity publishing. The publisher's bad reputation in book publishing led to its Wikipedia article being deleted; see Articles for deletion/IGI Global (2nd nomination).  has had something like a campaign to remove citations of IGI Global books from Wikipedia (e.g. ), which is how I learned of the company's bad reputation in book publishing. I would like to hear what other editors think of the relevance of the IGI Global book chapter to the notability discussion. Biogeographist (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: Full disclosure - I am a former colleague of Mr. Robinson's who recently heard that his listing was being considered for deletion. I had to chime in. One of the problems facing this listing is the fact that so many of those affected by this pedagogical approach are in areas of the world where western news outlets and academic researchers are less likely to take notice of the work being done (e.g. The Dominican Republic and Uganda). I don't know if there is wiggle room in Wikipedia's Notability guidelines to account for this unintentional bias of omission, but hopefully, there is. I just posted my first edit to add another reference in the hope that we can keep this transformative concept in front of educators. Thank you for considering it. Gtjosvold (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC) — Gtjosvold (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Thanks for your disclosure. I think there is some wiggle room, but I don't understand your argument; the creator of CBL is based in North America (if I'm not mistaken), and what I have read about CBL does not suggest that it is less relevant to the Global North than to the Global South or that there is any reason why people in the former would ignore or be uninterested in it.
 * Regarding keeping CBL "in front of educators", I doubt that Wikipedia has been contributing much (though perhaps Sean has some anecdotal evidence to the contrary): during 2019, Connections-based learning had a daily average of 3 pageviews, compared to, for example, a daily average of 68 for Global citizenship education, 121 for Service-learning, 289 for Nonformal learning, 418 for Problem-based learning, and 541 for Experiential learning! Biogeographist (talk) 02:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is basically promotional. It was created by user:serobinson01, who admits to being the inventor of the term. The sources are appalling: either they do not mention the subject, or they are junk journals (e.g. a Turkish journal with no DOI), or mere namechecks ("She is also a mentor, creative learning methods researcher and an inaugural ambassador of Connections-Based Learning by Sean Robinson, Canada."). IGI, incidentally, is an academic vanity press. It makes its money by selling vanity copies and archive copies to libraries whose mission is to buy one of everything. If Johnathan Bishop can publish a book under their imprimatur (and he did), they have no editorial standards at all. Having stripped out some of the obvious crap, what's left appears to be a discussion of a potentially valid subject but with a heavy overlay of somebody trying to claim ownership of the bleeding obvious. There's nothing out there that supports the strident claims made, and most of the original content was naked self-promotion. Guy (help!) 09:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guy. The sources do not support notability. I'm also concerned that the article has been written and maintained by someone with a book to sell, in contravention of COI. Girth Summit  (blether)  09:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete- this is a promotional brochure resting on sources that do not support notability. Reyk YO! 10:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * comment nor sure about this, yes its 100% a promotional. But there also does seem to be some degree of limited notability. I think what we have maybe a subject that would be weak keep written so badly it needs to be started form scratch by a neutral party. This means I lean (but its not firm) towards weak delete.Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Guy's analysis of the references in the article and per he and 's concerns about having created by a COI-conflicted editor. I agree there could be notability to this book from, but would concur it's probably best to have someone neutral rewrite this article (assuming someone neutral cares to do so). Doug Mehus T · C  15:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * there could be notability to this book: As I noted above, the fact that the book is held by a grand total of one library in WorldCat does not bode well for the notability of the book. Biogeographist (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Comment Lots of libraries don't subscribe to WorldCat because of the high membership and subscription fees. Or, they don't synchronize their catalogues with WorldCat often. So, I wouldn't use WorldCat for notability. That said, there's no reason for keeping this article given the above and below. Doug Mehus  T · C  20:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not at all suggesting that WorldCat would be decisive for notability, but it's very much a clue: it does not bode well for the likelihood of finding other indicators of notability, such as finding the kind of reviews that librarians use to select books. Biogeographist (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Unintelligible promotional edubabble. EEng 15:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I that. Good rationale! It is rather indecipherable to those outside of higher education circles. Doug Mehus  T · C  15:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's indecipherable to anybody. EEng 16:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete reminds me of a mini-version of ; virtually incomprehensible to those outside of education. Home Lander (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Trust me (I repeat) it's incomprehensible to everyone, inside or outside. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 18:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete as free of meaning. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC).
 * Delete Notability not established. Jschnur (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Even putting aside the lack of notability, there is a clear COI issue Dexxtrall (talk) 11:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The comparison to the now-infamous Information and communication technologies for development is mean but sadly accurate. This article is a dense blob of promotional gobbledygook that manages to use hundreds of words while being totally devoid of encyclopedic merit. While this article is not as impenetrable as the aforementioned deleted page (due mostly to the fact that it is shorter and was not written by as many people), it is still very bad and clearly not notable. Michepman (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is not observed. Celestina007 (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can only imagine that this relisting "to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus" is someone's idea of a joke. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 21:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Confusing and self-promoting. Doesn't meet notability requirements, even after revision.  The Savage  Norwegian  21:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.