Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TEFLWatch


 * 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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

TEFLWatch

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This web site does not meet the notability requirements for web sites. A. B. (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Alexa rank past a million, no WP:RS found. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see much notability here; significant perhaps only to a small community. --Brianyoumans 22:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

-Web Notability does not apply because it is a teaching organization. Never mind, TEFLWatch has been approached for information on several occassions in the past about situations for TEFL teachers.

-The site represents an organization that performs work for thousands of teachers throughout the world who lack

-Trying to hide the organization would be a disservice to thousands of teachers worldwide and would be considered a victory by schools that are taking advantage of teachers.

-It is linked to by other articles on wikipedia and is pertinent to

-Wikipedia is a general interest online encyclopedia, not an specific interest encylopedia.

-TEFLWatch's website has the most page views and vistors of ANY similar site.

If you really want to delete the article, you really should look into the organization and how your actions may or may not affect teachers who are in a tough situation and need access to information.

For teachers who are very concerned about this, you may want to be fully transparent as to why you want to delete the article.

And remember this from the Guide for Deletion: --Teflteacher 03:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) first invite discussion on the talk page if you are at all unsure as to the article's worth. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not notable!
 * 2) check the "what links here" link to see how the article is being used within Wikipedia.
 * 6 total edits since account created today -- all TEFLWatch-related. --A. B. (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggestion -- simply find some references to demonstrate notability (per the guidelines) that meet WP:RS and WP:V. One editor put a prod tag on the article explaining the article's problems and it was stripped off -- without comment. I put a notability tag on the article and Teflteacher took it off with out providing any references proving notability. Just demonstrate notability using a Reliable Source and this article stays. Otherwise, it has to go unless someone changes the guidelines this week.--A. B. (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --BozMo talk 08:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

--Freddyjacobsen 12:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Don't know what tags you use to vote to keep it, but I vote to keep it. It is well known in its area, but I agree they need to show it is notable. Maybe you can help teflteacher by telling him exactly. Another question is why notability was never raised in the Talk Page for the article? It seems like that would have been a better place to start then putting up a 5 day deadline. In fact, I thought that was how it was supposed to proceed and before you look at how many edits I have, I only have a few on my username. I usually don't log in to make edits.


 * Comment -- Freddy, you or TEFLteacher can follow the links in my earlier posts and they spell out what's needed. For convenience, here they are again:
 * WP:RS -- Reliable Sources Guideline
 * WP:V -- Verifiability
 * WP:NOTE -- Notability (general)
 * WP:WEB -- Notability -- Internet sites
 * WP:OR -- No Original Research (I did not post this link earlier)
 * A Google search on TEFLWatch turns up only 78 unique hits. I hope this helps.--A. B. (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

--Che1959 12:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep --I started the article because I thought if three wikipedia articles had references to the organization that it needed to have its own article. Frankly, it's not notable outside of the TEFL community, but in the TEFL community, it is known. Frankly, it can stay or go and I am not bothered in the least. Let's look at two scenarios. It stays, people wondering about the organization are able to visit the article within Wikipedia and find information on exactly what it is about or the second scenario, in those articles, a direct link to TEFLWatch can be made and people visit the site directly to find out more about it. I think offering a non-biased place is better, but in the end, wikipedia admins will make the call, as they should. I, like two others on this page, am curious why issues hadn't been brought up in the talk page first. I know when I edit a page, my first instinct is to put something in the talk page before I would ever think of tagging it for deletion.
 * I feel strongly that notability within a small community of interest is just as worthy as notability in a large one. I believe we should have articles on quantum chromodynamics and Thomas Arne even though the vast mass of the world population has never heard of them. I've taken a look at the TEFLWatch site, and wasn't impressed by their approach to ratings, which seems to me to be very weak - if I were a teacher I would take the site with a very large grain of salt - but it certainly exists and seems to score well in google-hittage. I'm inclined to say that the article passes the notability barrier, and I believe that adequate references/sources can be found ( although current referencing is rather weak ). Where I do feel uncomforable is with the tone of the article: strictly speaking, much of what TEFLWatch provides is opinion, not information. This needs to be made clear, ideally by finding a reference that points out the site's weaknesses, and incorporating the appropriate points into this article. I think that at present the article appears superficially NPOV ( and it is clear that the writers have tried to be NPOV ), but is at risk of conveying the view that the site itself acts in an NPOV way, which ( because of its rating methodology ) it can't do. Subject to this being made clear, I'm inclined to say Keep, though with a re-write where appropriate. If my concerns here are not clear, please feel free to get in touch with me, and I'll try to explain further. WMMartin 18:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is just one person's perspective (mine), but the first I've ever heard of TEFLWatch is through Wikipedia.  There are numerous online watchdogs for the TEFL community (as an EFL teacher of three years I am acutely aware of a number of them), and none of them are notable enough to warrant their own pages.  In fact, if we were to lower the requirements for notability, there are one or two watchdog groups that deserve their own pages before this website.  Content-wise, TEFLWatch is nothing resembling a comprehensive website concerning the TEFL community, which is a criterion for notability if I could add it as one.  In addition, a close look at this page and I can't find a way to edit it to make it not look like an advertisement to the site.  On the flipside, I try to keep an eye out for anything TEFL-related on Wikipedia that sounds like shameless plugging for the big businesses in this community, and I don't think it's out of line to insist for the same when it comes to their watchdogs.  Furthermore, if this is strictly an advocacy issue for those who prefer to keep the page, there are a number of concept pages (i.e. cram school, language school) that could do with an external link to the website, or better yet, more details about the state of teaching English abroad.  Certainly the "Problems" section of Teaching English as a Foreign Language could be better served with greater elaboration than what is already there.  Just having a page out exclusively about the website TEFLWatch does not further the cause of EFL teachers, if it concerns you as much as it concerns me. Roehl Sybing 03:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per the various references in notable newspapers. One wouldn't be enough, a few puts it at borderline notable, which is where this article is at.Just H 03:53, 18 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.