Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five themes of geography
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Notability has been established and the arguments for deletion have been refuted. NAC—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Five themes of geography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no indication that this method of teaching is notable. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a textbook. ÷seresin 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom., or merge with Outline of geography. JJL (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a textbook, it is an encyclopaedia article about a model used by teachers to teach geography, that is widely documented in many places, from page 127 of ISBN 9781599424057 through page 259 of ISBN 9780805855364 to the whole of chapter 5 of ISBN 9781593857158. There's also Salvatore J. Natoli's article "Guidelines for Geographic Education and the Fundamental Themes in Geography" in volume 93 of the Journal of Geography.
This is an encyclopaedia for readers who want to know about educational models and standards as much as it is an encyclopaedia for readers who want to know about The Simpsons. There is no reason not to serve such readers. Nor are we short of sources documenting the subject to use in writing an article for the benefit of those readers. The PNC appears to be satisfied even for this sub-topic alone, let alone for the umbrella topic. Seresin and JJL, you clearly didn't use that new "find sources" link that is being added nowadays to AFD nominations. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see you've ruled out the possibility that I might simply disagree with you. I searched and saw that most of the links were about lesson plans. While it's been a widely used approach, being in Guidelines for Geographic Education doesn't clearly rise to the level of independent notability for me. Looking at what little links to the page, a merge seems quite reasonable. JJL (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You ruled out that particular possibility yourself, with a simple echoing "per nom" rationale. I'm not buying that you "saw that most of the links were lesson plans" for two simple reasons: First, you wrote no such thing at the time, but only now, retrospectively, when your "per nom" rationale is pointed out as faulty. Second, actually searching reveals no such thing. I suggest that you actually do the research and read the results that come up. Here's a hint: It didn't take long, or a great deal of imagination, to turn up the three books cited above, and they aren't the only book sources in existence. And that's just one possible search to run. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see you've ruled out the possibility that I might simply disagree with you. I searched and saw that most of the links were about lesson plans. While it's been a widely used approach, being in Guidelines for Geographic Education doesn't clearly rise to the level of independent notability for me. Looking at what little links to the page, a merge seems quite reasonable. JJL (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a legitimate article about a method of teaching that had been recommended by the Joint Committee on Geographic Education of the National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE). Not surprisingly, there are geography textbooks that follow these recommendations. A simple Google book search demonstrates that this method of teaching is notable "five+themes"&btnG=Search+Books. Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. This appears to be an extremely notable pedagogic concept.
- http://books.google.com/books?id=DlSquDMlf18C&pg=PA265&dq=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22
- http://books.google.com/books?id=NR9m_fRkNEYC&q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22
- http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/1d/3d.pdf
- http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22+site%3A*.gov
- http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22+site%3A*.edu
- http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22&cf=all — Rankiri (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2009 (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.