Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internationalised curriculum


 * 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 delete (G11) by GRBerry. Non-admin closure. Blueboy96 23:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Internationalised curriculum

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article appears to be primarily an advertisement for the Praht Thai School and its teaching methods; there are no sources that would support that this is a significant or widely discussed educational concept. This AfD should include other articles with a similar problem by the same creator:
 * Monolingual immersion
 * Parallel immersion
 * maybe even Praht Thai School? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to address your concerns but this is a project that exists and is being delivered in answer to the growing problem of education quality in the Asian region. It is entirely factual and real. It is far from an advertisement but an acknowledgement and explanation of a new methodology in dealing with this important area of education. Please do not censor what needs to be told Praht Thai School is the first to utilise and implement this programme and the only place people can currently see it in action. They must be part of the process - they are the pioneers.This form is the pilot for what it is hoped will become the standard national curriculum form for many countries in the region. It has been the work collaboration of many ministries including Singapore and Australian Ministries of Education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArisB (talk • contribs)
 * Reply. I do not doubt that it is real; I am, however, disputing that it meets the notability criteria.  You should read those criteria, decide in what way this project meets them, and then try to provide the reliable sources that shows that this project meets those criteria.  If other users are persuaded by your sources that the subject is notable, then the articles will be kept. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: Written like an essay and/or advertisement for the school. Unsourced, unnotable, subject. Spigot Map  12:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi\ Thank you for your feedback but as this article refers to a new methodology just released the kind of cross references you mentioned may be difficult to source. I will however look for them and include them as I find them. This IS important information and balances areas you have not touched on in relation to the area such as the article on parallel immersion which appears to be written by the school mentioned in that article. The work pertaining to the Internationalised curriculum has been conducted by many people over a number of years. While one of the founders of the syllabus has worked closely to ensure the roll out of the first school is successful, this refers to its implementation and affect not to its commerciality. This is every bit as important a milestone as syllabuses such as IB curriculum and Wikipedia is a place that such major breakthroughs should be found not censored. Please reconsider your stance and maintain this important information online —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArisB (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, maybe you misunderstand how wikipedia works. ALL content must be written in an encyclopedic manner, must be sourced by independent secondary sources, per WP:RS. Essays are not part of the (front-end) of wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia. Subjects also must pass WP:N. Spigot  Map  13:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no need to explain how important it is; those kinds of comments aren't really helpful. All we need are the reliable sources that verify its importance.  If no such sources exist, then the subject is not notable, and it'll be deleted no matter how important it is. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No independent sources, doesn't appear to be notable yet and reads like an advert.Alberon 13:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per FisherQueen and Alberon. Note that ArisB created three copies of this article, two of which were speedied.  I had tagged this one as well, but ArisB removed the speedy tag.  I have restored it. Michaelbusch 18:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and pretty much every other comment here. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 19:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the main article was just speedied. Michaelbusch 20:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Notice that the school may not need to be speedied, if it can be cleaned up of advertising and sourced. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:22, 8 November 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.