Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informational listening


 * 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 KEEP. Jinian 01:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Informational listening

 * — (View AfD)

Work of a WP:SPA, no edits since October when this was added. One source paper, the other source does not mention the term. Can't find any reliable sources on Google, very few hits and those I saw are unrelated. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepThe term seems used by experts in the field of listening such as university courses. Lots of google hits even with the term in quotes. I'm not sure the definitions all match but that seems a debate for the talk page.Obina 00:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Counting Google hits is not research. JzG states that he did the search, and couldn't find a reliable source in any of the pages that the search turned up.  If you want to counter that, simply pointing out the number of hits is insufficient.  You need to point to an actual source.  Uncle G 02:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially since the google search will return anythign with the word "informational" followed by "listening", which gives a lot of unrelated results. Google Scholar  also indicates that this term is not in widespread use.  Factiva turns up no hits.  Guy (Help!) 12:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentThe following educational sites use the term in a very similar fashion to this article  . A similar use of the term is here and here  where it is also called comprehensive listening. And here are some books (all educational books on communctions style) that use the term.  I confess to not owning these, but the "search inside" feature of Amazon shows the term to be used as in this article. Based on these sources, it seems that this term is used in the listening field to describe a type of listening. I agree the article needs to be better referenced.  Also I think it needs review by an expert in the field. And almost totally off topic, in case no one has told you lately, this is a great and helpful essay! User:Uncle G/On notability.Nice.Obina 15:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep on the merits of the article, and on the obvious potential for sourcing. Completely new concept to me, but educational. What is WP for if not new concepts?DGG 06:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * First, a riposte to the preceding comment: Wikipedia is expressly *not* for new concepts, it is for concepts that are well established. New concepts are original research, which is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Had we been around a century ago, we wouldn't have accepted an article on Special Relativity even if ( well, actually, especially if ) it had been posted by Einstein himself, if it were not adequately referenced and demonstrably notable. New ideas aren't our stock-in-trade: we're here for the stuff that has been tested in the marketplace of thought and found buyers and sellers. My initial reaction to this article was that it was OR, but a quick google suggests otherwise: the term actually does seem to get used by people working in this area. On balance, I'm inclined to Keep, though per Obina I support getting an expert in the field to take a look and suggest improvements. WMMartin 18:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep —  just as long as an expert tag's added. Wizardman  17:52, 14 January 2007 (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.