Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pimsleur 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 delete. If anyone feels they are willing to merge the little available content, they can let me know and I'll undelete it under a redirect. And if anyone thinks they can recreate the article in a less spammy manner, they are as always welcome to try. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pimsleur method

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

Advertising and badly sourced article. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The quality of the current version of the article is not a reason to delete it if the topic itself is worth inclusion. There seems to be enough content here that merging into spaced repetition and second-language acquisition would not be a good idea. It also seems to be a bad idea to merge it with the company Pimsleur Language Programs. Pimsleur published quite a bit about his method (long before it was commercialized) and is also cited in the language learning literature. That there is a commercial version of his method is no reason to exclude it from WP. --Macrakis (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Undue emphasis and duplicative. the net effect is promotional. The excess detail could be removed, but there would be left nothing not covered in the other articles. (and I'm going to check Pimsleur Language Programs to see if it should be merged into the author article. . DGG ( talk ) 10:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Pimsleur Language Programs, and check for WP:NPOV. Deunanknute (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge selectively to Pimsleur Language Programs. As far as I can tell the article gets its promotional quality thanks to the fact that the only non-primary citation it uses doesn't even mention the Pimsleur method. There is the Psychology Today article listed in further reading which looks ok, though. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NORTH AMERICA¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:44, 12 February 2015 (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.