Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Focal Skills


 * 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 no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 06:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Focal Skills

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No sourcing found, no notability asserted, etc. etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No sourcing found where? There is one source in the article and there are more if you search on google books. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep as the rationale given by nominator is nonsensical and not based in policy. Υπογράφω (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * "I was unable to find any reliable sources to verify that this even exists" is not based in policy? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar: . --Michig (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Were you really unable to read the "references" section in the article? You can find a reliable source there, and could when you nominated this. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as almost totally unsourced word salad. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is acceptably sourced (judging from its history, all of it except the last section is based on the chapter in Second Language Acquisition Theory and Pedagogy). Plenty of sources on both google books and google scholar, so the question of notability doesn't even arise. And if people are unhappy with the style (I guess that's what "word salad" was in reference to), then they're welcome to rewrite or copyedit it. – Uanfala (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a copyright violation. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Being based on reliable sources such as the book cited here is precisely the way that articles should be written. It is only a copyright violation if actual text is copied. Is it? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 22 January 2018 (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.