Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mind-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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Mind-based learning

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced original research about a neologism. Google search returns about 200 hits which do not appear to refer to any specific theory or practice. A news search returns all of two ghits, both a bout a single school which uses a program of the same name. Tagged (not by author) with "underconstruction", but unlikely to improve based on the existing material. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Appears to be a notable technique of instruction, in use in schools throughout (at least) the UK.  See Times Educational Supplement and Guardian articles. JulesH (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, Burton, D Psycho-Pedagogy and Personalised Learning Journal of Education and Teaching (2007) appears to be at least partially about the technique, although I ain't paying £16 to read it to find out. JulesH (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are the same articles I found from the news search. They do not provide enough information to tie that program of the same name to the material in the article. I may have misunderstood the scope of the program from my initial readings, but it appears confined to a single district. Regardless, it is a neologism and two articles do not make it notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it a stretch of the word "neologism" to apply it to a subject described in two articles in respectable publications, published 3 years apart from each other. The fact that these articles both talk about the same district does not imply that it is the only one using the approach; a google search shows a large number of schools claiming to offer it (although unfortunately these are not reliable sources).  I think the key to fixing this article is if somebody who has access to the journal described above could get hold of that source, which is probably more detailed than the two news articles which we do have free access to, and could be used to expand the article substantially.  JulesH (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No sources specified whatsoever, no justification of content. Looie496 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless we can get some proper sources. The news stories cited do not expand on the subject at all, and certainly not enough to connect it to what is being described in the article. WP:V -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The TES article mentioned above says what was called a "mind-based learning" programme" , and goes on with It is that kind of buzzy language ...  I thinl that explicit acknowledgment from a good source that the term was not yet considered established, at least in 2007. DGG (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2009 (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.