Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogme language teaching

Dogme language teaching

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no evidence that this particular method is notable, and so he article is best seen as promotional for the method and the associates material. . Essentially all the references come from the two originators.

There's a related AfD , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Thornbury -- where I give the opinion that Thornbury , the co-inventor of this methodology, himself is notable. Ironically, he's notable in large part for his textbooks for elementary learners, and such textbooks are what his methodology described here strongly deprecates. . Possibly some of this is mergeable into the article on the author, if kept. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thornbury may be notable, but this method is not. We are under no obligation to advertise his products. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is so much confusion and contradiction about what dogme is, it's hard to take it seriously as a teaching method of note. — Spacedwarf (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This deletion seems strange to me (but I'm not a Wikipedia expert, just a language teacher). There're quite a few people involved in the movement, including some prominent bloggers. IH Online Teacher Training Institute (OTTI) is going to run a five-week workshop on Dogme. If you think that this should be deleted, then delete things like Task-based language learning. And anyway, it's a movement rather than simply a "product". Michael Grinberg (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
response - sounds like you're saying it's an up and coming concept; in other words, not notable yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had a look at the references, and the article by Simon Gill in IATEFL, Christensen's article in The Language Teacher, and the ELT Journal piece all seem to fulfil the notability criteria. — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 10:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There have also been reviews of his book published in various journals. Take a look at them on the book's page at Delta Publishing. — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Publisher's websites are notoriously not reliable, since they are advertising vehicles, not information sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to the individual journals that published the book reviews, not the site itself. — GypsyJiver (drop me a line) 21:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]