Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Polis Method


 * 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 redirect to Polis Institute. The article history remains in tact if there is anything worth incorporating into the target article, but it appears a consensus has emerged that notability is not well established and that there is not a ton of promise that it will be. Still, if sources do come to light, there is no reason this cannot be re-created in the future.  Go  Phightins  !  22:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The Polis Method

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I took a very deep breath before this nomination. This article is a magnificent feat of prestidigitation, but lacks any single source that refers to 'The Polis Method' outside of the school's own platforms, blogs or articles contributed by the designer of this method. Pretty much every citation doesn't refer to the method, but is used to stand up a concept referred to in the article, so cite 6 for instance talks about the 'full immersion approach' but not the Polis Method as it impacts or utilises that approach. And so on for pretty much every other citation in a very extensive list indeed. When you start to strip out the citations that just prove a mentioned concept exists but has no reference at all to the Polis Method, you are left with very thin beer indeed - and that almost all down to the designer and the Polis School. There is no independent, reliably sourced content here that actually tells us that the Polis Method is recognised as a concept, an academically valid approach or even, indeed, a thing. And so, with a heavy heart, I'm proposing it be deleted as a magnificent monument to Original Research that fails WP:GNG and breaches WP:OR; WP:PRIMARY and WP:SYNTH. Oh, and I agree with the tags too - and think the problem is so deep rooted there that it would be impossible to weed out the promotion and POV without invoking, as I am effectively, WP:TNT. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Alexandermcnabb for your comments. Would it help delay blowing up this article if I provided you with a list of "(sources that refer) to 'The Polis Method' outside of the school's own platforms, blogs or articles contributed by the designer of this method"? I would continue editing that article now to still try and save it from obliteration but I need to address very important personal and professional matters within the next 2-3 days that I would have to delay the editing and incorporation of these sources until then? If you think this request is reasonable and would like to see the list of sources I'm referring to, then I can post that here in this conversation. I hope you would consider. Thank you very much.  Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I managed to find some time today to continue addressing the issue. Let me add that I will not contest the comment that I wrote this article more like a research paper than a Wikipedia article. I hope to correct this after the respite of I requested. But I will also add that what I wrote does not really reflect the fact that there are published articles written / made by parties not at all linked to the Polis Institute. For those articles written by the author himself, they're usually together with another, peer reviewed and published by reputable institutions (e.g. universities journals and publishing houses). A couple of these sources were in the References already. The reason I decided not to refer to the others is that most were not in English and may not be appreciated by English readers. But if it helps, I'd like to put them all in here already.
 * 2015, Gala Lopez de Lerma, Análisis comparativo de metodologías para el aprendizaje de la lengua latina, Universitat de Barcelona, soutenue le 18-12-2015, cf https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/393957#page=1, p. 83
 * 2015, Marco Riccuci, “Per una disamina del metodo Polis: un “nuovo” metodo glottodidattico per insegnare il greco antico come L2?” in lucida intervalla Časopis za klasične nauke A Journal of Classical Studies 44, p. 155-179
 * 2015, Michal Kabat, « Nauka jezyka starogreckiego w sposob czynny - metoda POLIS », pages 134-136, Nowy Filomata XIX 2015 (1)
 * 2016, Marco Ricucci, « Questione di metodo ? Note storico-culturali sulla via carsica del metodo “naturale” (o diretto) per l’insegnamento del greco antico nell’occidente latino(fono), in Thamyris, n. s. 7 (2016), 47-74, https://dialnet.unirioja.es › descarga › articulo
 * 2019, Francesca Dell’Oro, "Plongeon dans le grec ancien : compte-rendu des premiers ateliers de grec ancien oral de l’Université Grenoble Alpes", in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 132-145 (see especially pp. 134-135)
 * 2020, Francesca Dell' Oro, « Le défi des langues anciennes à l’oral dans les écoles de Suisse Romande » in Méthodes et modèles de l'apprentissage des langues anciennes, vivantes et construites, hier et aujourd'hui, édité par Francesca DELL' ORO, Cahiers du CLSL, n° 62, p. 67-100 (cf. https://edipub-unil.ch/index.php/clsl/article/view/947 ) Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 09:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to add these:
 * 2019, Christophe Rico, « La méthode Polis » in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 193-216
 * 2021, Christophe Rico and Michael Kopf, “Teaching Ancient Greek by the Polis Method”, in Communicative Approaches for Ancient Languages, edited by Mair E. Lloyd and Steven Hunt,  Bloomsbury Academic, London / Oxford / New York/ New Delhi / Sydney, 141-149." Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 09:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The easier bit first: I think that at least some of the newly provided sources are effective in showing some baseline notability in the field. The Dell'Oro and Riccuci articles are good that way. The de Lerma ref is a thesis, which puts it at a slightly lower level. The Kabat ref I was unable to pull up, but at least the title looks promising. So I think for a concise and neutrally written article, notability could be signed off on.
 * The larger problem is that this is not concise or neutral. It's very much a promotional piece in the sense that many scientific journal articles are promotional - the writer showcases a product, argues how necessary the development was, how useful the outcome, and how it matches the requirements of whatever funding body provided the backing. An encyclopedia wants none of that. Along with that comes great over-indulgence in detail - again, fine for a journal article, not for an encyclopedia. And it would be a big job for any editor to cut this text down to suitable dimensions. So: not sure we are in TNT territory, but I think the author would be doing everyone and the topic a favour by moving this back to draft and turning it from an academic argument, into a concise article. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this note and to @Elmidae for the constructive criticism. Let me edit this article now and perhaps you can then tell me if I should still move this to draft. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Draftify and eventually send through AfC. Sure, there's lots of references in the article. It seems like a miss mosh of random stuff though and therefore isn't very up to snuff as an article. I'm not saying it couldn't be with some work though, just that it's not good enough for main space right now. So, I think draftifying it is perfectly fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. I introduced some changes to the article. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However the AfD goes, you should declare your pretty obvious (to me at least) COI with the topic of article. I'll leave it up to you to figure out how to do that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Due to lack of participation I'll probably go with draftify, but, what do others think?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I tried to check the first ref. but was in Spanish. It seems that at p83, there is a paragraph mentioning the Polis Institute. Very hard to interpret, as I can not copy-paste the text and use google translate. Since I want to make sure that there are not only brief mentions of The Polis Method at academic bibliography, could you be kind enough to point to two sources that discuss The Polis Method in depth? So I will have a look afterward? Gracias (not watching, please ping)Cinadon36 19:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello @Cinadon36 - thanks for your reply. I have found 5 articles which are whole articles on Polis - unfortunately, only one is in English. This one is published by Bloomsbury Academic, a London-based publishing house that included the Polis Method a very recent book entitled "Communicative Approaches for Ancient Languages." It is written by the author of the method and a collaborator of his. The abstract of the article may be found in this link: doi:10.5040/9781350157378.ch-014 The other 4 are in other European languages:
 * 2 in Spanish: (2012,  M. Carmen Encinas Reguero, « Un caso especial en la enseñanza de lenguas: las lenguas clásicas”  in El aula como ámbito de investigación sobre la enseñanza y aprendizaje de la lengua. V Seminario, Uri Ruiz Bikandi – Itziar Plazaola (eds./arg.), Universidad del Pais Vasco, p. 82-93 https://web-argitalpena.adm.ehu.es/pdf/UVWEB127079.pdf ; 2015, Gala Lopez de Lerma, Análisis comparativo de metodologías para el aprendizaje de la lengua latina, Universitat de Barcelona, Ph.D. Dissertation. http://diposit.ub.edu/dspace/handle/2445/102093 )
 * 1 in Italian (2015, Marco Riccuci, “Per una disamina del metodo Polis: un “nuovo” metodo glottodidattico per insegnare il freco antico come L2?” in lucida intervalla Časopis za klasične nauke A Journal of Classical Studies 44, p. 155-179 https://www.academia.edu/23719638/Per_una_disamina_del_metodo_Polis_un_nuovo_metodo_glottodidattico_per_insegnare_il_greco_antico_come_L2?auto=download
 * 1 in Polish (2015, Michal Kabat, «Nauka jezyka starogreckiego w sposob czynny - metoda POLIS», pages 134-136, Nowy Filomata XIX 2015 (1) (Whole article on the Polis method) http://pau.krakow.pl/index.php/pl/wydawnictwo/strony-czasopism/nowy-filomata/archiwum/xix-2015-nr-1)
 * Except for the Polish article, I have read extensively - not the dissertation, I admit, since it's a comparative study and I simply focused on Polis - the ones is Spanish and Italian in their original languages. They are, in fact whole articles on Polis and not just brief mentions. If you wish, the links to the works of Encinas Reguero and Riccuci could be copy-pasted.
 * I read all those articles in a rather academic context. I am an assistant professor of communication ethics in the Philippines with a passion for ancient languages and already finished several classes in Latin, Hebrew and Greek in the Polis Institute. I was impressed with the method, thoroughly enjoyed the experience, and am writing this to share what I know. While writing this Wikipedia article, I am also in the process of writing a journal article on this method which I intend to submit it to The Journal of Classics Teaching (UK-based). This is the reason that in the previous versions of this article, there were several references which have been referred to as "trivial" in Wikipedia. What is concerned standard fare in journal articles of citing sources of concepts you mention that need clarification elsewhere (e.g. terms lie "language-based," "whole language approach," etc. is apparently frowned upon in Wikipedia. I stand corrected there since I am new to this platform and still finding my way around in terms of writing style.
 * As to institutions in Europe and the US that have shown interest in the Polis Method and are using it, there are several cited in the article. Thanks. Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * the ones IN Spanish and Italian Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 10:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I failed to mention that since the author is French, he has another work on this method published by what I judge to be a rather respectable French academic source. The method is also mentioned as an alternative method for learning ancient languages in another article in French. This latter article is not wholly on the Polis method but its mention is certainly not merely in passing. If you are interested in these, here are the bibliographic details.
 * 2019, Christophe Rico, « La méthode Polis » in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 193-216 (Whole article on the Polis method) . https://books.openedition.org/ugaeditions/10289
 * 2019, Francesca Dell’Oro, "Plongeon dans le grec ancien : compte-rendu des premiers ateliers de grec ancien oral de l’Université Grenoble Alpes", in Fabula agitur – Pratiques théâtrales, oralisation et didactique des langues et cultures de l'Antiquité, Malika Bastin-Hammou, Filippo Fonio, Pascale Paré-Rey (édit.), UGA Editions, 132-145 (see pp. 134-135). https://books.openedition.org/ugaeditions/10289
 * Thanks! Robert Z. Cortes Rzcortes (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I've seen this before with an academic topic article, where a bunch of refs are included that discuss topics tangential to the article's subject to give it an air of sophistication. At best, it could be a section of the Polis Institute, but the lack of specific coverage does not constitute enough for its own article. Angryapathy (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Polis Institute article is a good example of exactly what your talking about. Six trivial references just for the first sentence, yikes. Not surprising though since like this article it's mostly been edited by Rzcortes. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, I am not impressed, but it seems there is enough foreign coverage of Polis method. This has been the most convincing publishing . I am a little uneased, since I am unfamiliar with french lang and I do not know the editors. But UGA Editions is the publisher of Université Grenoble Alpes. Cinadon36 06:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The article needs some clean-up but it passes notability criteria. Poorly written article is not a reason to delete if it can be salvaged and improved. If not going to keep, I recommend Redirect or Merge with The Polis Institute main page which already exists. Dr. Universe (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly notable given the number of independent citations on the polis method; they may not be Anglo-Saxon, but they are scholarly. Article should echo more these independent citations than the writings of the original creator and institution. Remove all marketing-sounding catch phrases in the lede. Jesuitsj (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify at best. Clearly not ready for mainspace.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify or redirect to Polis Institute. I am looking at the version that includes the changes "edited for encyclopedic tone" and "more encyclopedic tone editing" (by the likely COI author) and it still reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article. MrsSnoozyTurtle 08:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect, possibly selective merge to The Polis Institute. The title already implies that this is a method specific to this institution. The article is full of promotional buzzwords and jargon, making me believe that we won't lose much if we omit this content.  Sandstein   08:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.