Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAGteach

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TAGteach

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

Note: The AfD was originally written for the article Tag teach. However, this was a recently created duplicate of TAGteach, and has now been deleted, so this AfD has been modified to refer to the currently existing title of what was effectively the same article. Closing admin, if this discussion results in "delete" then please also delete the redirect which I have created at Tag teach. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the science behind the subject is correct, it seems to pseudo-advertise something called TAGteach in which there is a website online [1] promoting teacher seminars. Also, references are to science of Behaviorism only, and not the subject itself. Also, user generated content from Scribe calls in to question of WP:RS. Phearson (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANSWER: Correct, TAGteachInternational is a company promoting teacher seminars. However, TAGteach is nowadays a well renown concept in the clicker training community (differentiating the training of humans - where verbal instructions can be used - from the training of animals), and spreading rapidly in other communities (like special education, sports instructions, et c) as well. I also disagree with the critique of the references:

References within Wikipedia: TAGteach is referred to on "Karen Pryor" and on "Clicker training", and "Behaviorism" is relevant since TAGteach is a part of this underlying science.

The other references (books and articles) do refer to litterature where TAGteach (not just the underlying science) is discussed in detail.

Leebee118 (talk) 13:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it uses such science does not excuse it from relevant policies, such as WP:RS. Also, review WP:PEW if any if it applies. Phearson (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anlie8
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy Delete This is taking too long. Phearson (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clicker training seems to be about the operant conditioning of animals. This seems to be promoting a non-notable product relating to training teachers. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly written spam with the sole purpose of promoting the website in the external link section RadioFan (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2011 (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.