Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Models of Teaching

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 no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Models of Teaching

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

Unencyclopedic, arguably a how-to guide in places. Orphaned. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This appears to be attempting to be an article about a book, and is categorised as such, but without explicitly saying so, other than a reference to a book of the same name at the end. It was also assembled over 3 days in May through a number of edits by a variety of account names, some which look rather single-purpose. AllyD (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into pedagogy, as this appears to be a POV fork of that article, as well as an article about a non-notable textbook. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we follow the hypothesis that this is intended to be an article on Bruce Joyce's book of the same name, then there may be a case for keeping it: see Google Scholar citations. However this would require a radical salvage, as the current article text looks to be at best a set of notes around the book, at worst chunks pasted from other sources (note the leftover I-voice). And Wikipedia definitely does not need another nth hand guide to "What is Web 2.0?" So Delete unless anyone has the energy/drive to do a salvage rewrite. AllyD (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as revised, and consider merging into an article on Joyce, per citations noted above. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.