Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Understanding by Design

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 Keep. The article as it now stands bears no significant resemblance to the nominated article. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)`[reply]

Understanding by Design

~~Non-notable neologism.~~ Freechild 15:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the topic per the importance suggested below, and it turns out this is a notable topic. It is a commonly accepted neologism that clearly demonstrates its own importance. I rescind my original statement and say keep. – Freechild (Hey ya. | edits) 17:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apparently an important new theory in educational practices. 927 google scholar references must mean something. JulesH 16:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless edited into something with context and meaning. It may well be an important new theory, but describing it as a "framework for designing curriculum units, performance assessments, and instruction that lead your students to deep understanding of the content you teach" tells us nothing at all about it. Regardless of any widespread discussion in academia, I remain deeply leery of any article that purports to describe some new method that claims to offer great benefits, but then describes it purported subject in the vaguest possible terms. All such articles sound like a come-on for some commercial operation. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Doesn't this describe all stubs? JulesH 06:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Not at all. Compare, for example, the more appropriate level of abstraction in a education stub like blue book exam. This stub, by contrast, promises to "lead students to a deep understanding of the content", but describes it only as a "framework." Its inappropriate level of abstraction reads like a teaser. It promises great things, but in order to find out what the great secret is, you're going to have to shell out the money. - Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 5 June 2007 (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.