Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Proficiency Paradox Theory


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

The Proficiency Paradox Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is WP:OR; I find no references that discuss a "proficiency paradox" regarding teacher's evaluation ratings. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 06:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, its an essay. Szzuk (talk) 13:29, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No comment on whether or not the topic is a real thing, but the article is irretrievably an essay so it's at least in WP:TNT territory. SpinningSpark 23:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment [was "Keep"]. The article posits a paradox and cites numerous off-line sources.  I don't quite get the reasoning or understand the evidence from a quick read, myself, but I am not familiar with topic or any of the sources.  I think the article could/should be better developed.  It seems that the writer(s) valued brevity overly much for my taste, however I believe there is some substance there.  I certainly don't see how it is an "essay" though, and I don't agree with Power~enwiki that our failure to have access to the references means that the topic is invalid.  I see no evidence this is wp:OR.  Someone needs to go to a proper library and request the sources by inter-library loan or whatever, and to develop the article better.  The article could be tagged and the need for more explanation could be posted to the Talk page.  But wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you google the exact term "Proficency Paradox Theory" (with the quotes to exclude other results) there are just 12 results all wikipedia related. The discrepancy between loads of offline refs and none online is stereotypical of an essay, also the dense text and the fact this is a theoretical concept. It looks like it was written by a college student in the college library so I'm unwilling to accept the authors offline refs without verification independent of the author. Szzuk (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Checking all the sources is quite onerous as there are a lot of them and there are no inline cites to give a clue which are most relevant. However, I've checked every source in the list that has a link.  Not one contains the term "paradox", let alone "Proficiency Paradox Theory".  One might expect sources early in the list to be the most relevant.  The first one is a bit obscure in notation and doesn't have a link, but is actually an Act of Congress as far as I can tell.  It's this one which also doesn't mention any kind of "paradox" or "theory".  The second one, "Teachers’ motivation to learn", I've requested a copy, but I bet you a beer it doesn't talk about paradoxes either.  I'm not going to waste the library's time requesting any more of them.  You are welcome to if you want, but a very clear pattern is already emerging – this is rampant WP:OR.  Thats enough for me to stick with delete.  Crikey, it's in speedy delete WP:A11 territory. SpinningSpark 19:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Having now read the source, it says this about educational psychology theories: "In the past three decades, teacher motivation has been defined primarily through social cognitive theory (efficacy) and self-determination theory (intrinsic and extrinsic motivation)." The first one might be readable as "Proficiency Theory", but nowhwere in the paper is that name used (not even any use of the word proficiency) nor is there any discussion of any paradox in any context whatsoever. SpinningSpark 11:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Szzuk's point is fair. And thank you User:Spinningspark for making the effort to check sources, including requesting one by interlibrary loan or whatever.  I remove my "keep" vote in this edit.  Thank you both. --Doncram (talk) 04:41, 26 November 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.