Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning by teaching


 * 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 both Learning by teaching and Jean-Pol Martin, which was added to the nomination halfway through. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Learning by teaching

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is advertising for neuro-woo complete with HOWTO instructions, mostly edited by its chief real-world propagator and sourced only to in-bubble refs. Please see top editors in editing statistics. It is easy to see that WP is being abused for promotion when the organization's website actually directs people to WP, as the website for this does. This needs a complete overhaul, if it even meets GNG. Hence, TNT. Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic has great notability, especially in the German language as Lernen durch Lehren. For an example of a good source in English, see Learning by Teaching: Evidence-based Strategies to Enhance Learning in the Classroom, which was written by respectable educationalists.  Note that the topic has equivalent articles in 11 other Wikipedias besides this one and that's a good clue that we should have this too.  Once again, note that WP:TNT is not policy; not even a guideline; it's just a disruptive essay.  Our actual policies include: WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And keep Jean-Pol Martin too as it seems fairly clear that the subject passes WP:PROF. Andrew D. (talk) 07:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you explain the process by which you located those sources. It would also be a good idea to disclose whether you have personally read them and explain how they demonstrate the significant impact of Martin's work. Given your history of claiming to be familiar with scholarly literature in a wide variety of fields when articles in those fields come to AFD, I am unfortunately forced to be skeptical. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Andrew D. (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Welcome to another edition of "People who don't get how notability on Wikipedia works nominating obviously notable, and thus applicable, articles for deletion." Seriously, there's two freaking independent sources mainly covering this topic (, the link Andrew D. gave above, and many non-online sources cited in the "selective descriptions and researches" of this article). Close the nomination as a Keep immediately and block the nominator for his incorrect and uninformed reasoning towards deletion the article. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:09, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hell, I'm amazed that there were so many morons willing to delete notable articles in the first place for reasons having nothing to do with notability (Simpsonwave and Tea Lizard). This nomination is only adding further salt to this wound, and it needs to STOP!!!! NOW!!! editorEهեইдအ😎 23:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way: could you please save this article too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Pol_Martin? Thank you very much for your competence! Jeanpol (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, in this case, I couldn't find any independent sources about you not written by you, so you're on your own there. editorEهեইдအ😎 23:24, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. In German there are a lot of independent sources, but not in English I guess. Anyway. The most important thing is to maintain "Learning by teaching"! Jeanpol (talk) 23:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Just link to some German newspapers or magazines that have provided significant coverage please. Someone can then run them through Google translator and see what they say.  And do any textbooks use your teaching method or mention you?   D r e a m Focus  21:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This for instance? SPIEGEL (link redacted), or this? DIE ZEIT (link redacted) or this? Treibhäuser der Zukunft, or this? GOETHE and this? Lille (link redacted), and this? Japan or this Karlsruhe Jeanpol (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed several links that violate the WP:COPYLINK policy and noted that within your post - you cannot link to sites that violate other people's copyright. The Spiegel piece has substantial discussion so is fine; the Zeit piece is also fine.  Not sure who is Trang Luu (the youtube poster) is?  The Goethe Haus piece is OK; freelance writer, easily a placed piece, but OK. There is not enough in the COPYLINK post about the Lille newpaper articles to cite them. Sorry.  The last one is a post on your blog. Not independent. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC) So that is two good ones, one OK one.  We still need to blow up the current article and re-do it; what is there is hopeless. Jytdog (talk) 03:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the many compliments, User:EditorE. :) this is a primary source by someone who implemented the method and describes the results. Not secondary as is required to meet N. It is also "in-bubble" so not really independent. The nomination, btw, was about this page, and calls for a complete rewrite aka TNT. Someone ~might~ be able to write a decent WP article about this but they would have to start over from scratch. This is just an extension of the website of the progenitor - one big violation of WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating the following related page because it has the same problems, but worse.
 * pinging the people who have !voted thus far: user:Andrew Davidson, [[User:EditorE, User:Jeanpol, and added "Biography" to the sorter in the header Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * pinging the people who have !voted thus far: user:Andrew Davidson, [[User:EditorE, User:Jeanpol, and added "Biography" to the sorter in the header Jytdog (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep both. Here is a translation of the German Wikipedia article on Jean-Pol Martin, and here is a translation of the German wikipedia article on Learning by teaching. Being the topic of an article on German Wikipedia does not create automatic notability on English Wikipedia, but the number and quality of the references in both German-language articles strongly suggests that both English articles deal with a notable topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Eastmain there are two articles nominated. Please !vote on both.
 * Also, the nomination for this page is TNT. If you want to keep it I suggest that you roll up your sleeves and start making this a WP article and not an extension of the LDL website.  Even so, you may not succeed. It is not clear to me that there are sufficient independent, reliable sources, or that we will be able to keep this free of the promotion that this page has been subject to. Jytdog (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. The 45 references in the German version of Learning by teaching are sufficient to establish notability, even if they haven't been added to the English article yet. And I think that Jean-Pol Martin has adequate references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 08:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral, but... Is it COPYVIO to post a straight translation of an entire one-hour (?) lesson, which is what this looks like? If it doesn't appear almost word-for-word in the cited source, I find it hard to believe that it could meet WP:V and not be original research, and if it counts as COPYVIO to present a direct translation of the full text of an entire lesson plan, then every version of the article between January 2007 and the future point that it gets removed will need to be rev-delled anyway.
 * Also noting that the OP is right about just about everything, I just don't necessarily think the page should be deleted. Articles written primarily by COI editors, whose off-wiki sites tell readers to consult Wikipedia for what essentially amount to first-hand, "official" information, don't have any place on Wikipedia.
 * And while I am not interested in casting a !vote at this point, I think User:Alexf (who opened the recent AN thread) might be, so pinging him.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Neutral As mentioned, I did not come with intention to delete. I am not questioning the notability of either the article or the subject. I was concerned with the COI issue and asked for a review. -- Alexf(talk) 10:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep for . He is a professor at a major German university, which makes him notable. Weak Delete for (Lernen durch Lehren). This has numerous GBooks entries which would suggest it is not in-bubble thinking, which weve seen before on Afd. It could be a copyvio but could also open sourced. It is a great looking article, written like manual or paper, professionally written. It would need to be rewritten, as it is instructional. It is not WP article. scope_creep (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 13:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - so that it can be re-written from scratch. As it stands, the article is almost completely promotional in both tone and content, and simply scrubbing it would end up with something incomprehensible.  An alternative is to strip it down to the bare bones and keep it, but with the COI SPA author topic banned from contributing to it, but I think deleting it to start over is a better option.  The closer should please note the off-wiki canvassing by the author. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, but tone is not a correct reason to delete an article. Notability of a topic is a reason to delete an article. You've all seem to forgotten that given the recent deletion nominations I've seen in the past two years. editorEهեইдအ😎 11:08, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and delete the auto-bio article as well, as not passing WP:PROF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep for Definitely is worthy of an Wikipedia article.Also why would you delete the article and start from scratch when you already have gotten a basis? Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:NORESCUE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @Beyond My Ken: WP:NORESCUE makes sense only if the subject is not notable. --Cethegus (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If the promotional quality of the article is such that there's no way to make a neutral article out of it, it should apply as well, per WP:COMMONSENSE. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Der Spiegel has 840,000 people buying it weekly. Other sources covering this confirm notability.   D r e a m Focus  03:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also keep the article for the notable guy who created this, he passing WP:NACADEMIC 1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.  D r e a m Focus  03:52, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Have you found any independent reliable sources that demonstrate that the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline? Per this edit, I see Wikipedia articles making that claim, but based on what looks like questionable misrepresentation of sources, most of which are not independent anyway. I can state from experience that the approach does not have wide acceptance in Japan (a claim not directly made in our article, but very much implied) or Ireland (which one would imagine would be one of the first places to adopt a cutting-edge language-teaching technique developed within the EU, if it really were having as significant an impact as our articles imply). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * How with India? Here MPhil/PhD (English) Entrance Test in University of Hyderabad 2017. Look at multiplechoice question 87 (link redacted).Jeanpol (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have for the third time now, redacted a WP:COPYLINK violation. Please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * If he gets media coverage for his teaching method being used in multiple schools, then that proves its notable enough for him to pass WP:NACADEMIC.  D r e a m Focus  18:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above "Delete" comments. Yoshi24517 Chat   Very Busy  16:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Jean-Pol Martin, per WP:PROF. Keep Learning by teaching as it thoroughly satisfies WP:GNG. EnPassant (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Jean-Pol Martin as WP:PROF & "Redirect" Learning by teaching to Martin, as the method creator. "Learning by teaching" is way too promotional to consider keeping and Wikipedia does not need two closely related articles on this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep both as Learning by teaching meets GNG and Jean-Pol Martin passes criteria 1 of NPROF. I do definitively agree, however, that Learning by Teaching needs a radical overhaul. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If Learning by teaching is kept I am committed to implementing, in short order, a major overhaul of the article which keeps as the basis for much of the existing text, as a note for the person who closes when weighing the delete because of TNT remarks. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep but Split due to WP:UNDUE and other problems. The LdL part with all its issues should be split off to another article with an AfD and leave only a paragraph on LdL in this article. I think all, including Martin, pass GNG. StrayBolt (talk) 15:22, 30 May 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.