Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogme language 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. Arguments for delete and keep are both well stated. Some of the ref's are weak. However, at this point, there is no consensus to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dogme language teaching[edit]

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

I see no evidence that this particular method is notable, and so he article is best seen as promotional for the method and the associates material. . Essentially all the references come from the two originators.

There's a related AfD , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Thornbury -- where I give the opinion that Thornbury , the co-inventor of this methodology, himself is notable. Ironically, he's notable in large part for his textbooks for elementary learners, and such textbooks are what his methodology described here strongly deprecates. . Possibly some of this is mergeable into the article on the author, if kept. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At 13:29, 24 January 2011, I transcluded this previously non-transcluded, active discussion AfD to the log.[1] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thornbury may be notable, but this method is not. We are under no obligation to advertise his products. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is so much confusion and contradiction about what dogme is, it's hard to take it seriously as a teaching method of note. — Spacedwarf (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This deletion seems strange to me (but I'm not a Wikipedia expert, just a language teacher). There're quite a few people involved in the movement, including some prominent bloggers. IH Online Teacher Training Institute (OTTI) is going to run a five-week workshop on Dogme. If you think that this should be deleted, then delete things like Task-based language learning. And anyway, it's a movement rather than simply a "product". Michael Grinberg (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
response - sounds like you're saying it's an up and coming concept; in other words, not notable yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had a look at the references, and the article by Simon Gill in IATEFL, Christensen's article in The Language Teacher, and the ELT Journal piece all seem to fulfil the notability criteria. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 10:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There have also been reviews of his book published in various journals. Take a look at them on the book's page at Delta Publishing. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Publisher's websites are notoriously not reliable, since they are advertising vehicles, not information sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was referring to the individual journals that published the book reviews, not the site itself. It appears that most of those aren't published in reliable sources, though (with the possible exception of the Modern English Teacher piece), so this is could be distracting people from my original point. This point is that if there is just one article mainly about Dogme language teaching published in a respectable source, then it is notable. I have listed three such articles above that were already included in the article's references. This seems an obvious reason to keep the article. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this comment on the article's talk page. It was left by User:Taiguofeng (talk, Contribs) at 11:02, 9 December 2010:

I believe that It should be kept. Dogme ELT-related works have won some awards for teachers on languages and methodology, including the 2004 Elton Awards Winning Natural Grammar and 2010 Elton Awards Winning Teaching Unplugged. http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-eltons-2010-winners-4.htm#uk-award-nominees Teaching Unplugged – Book By: Delta Publishing The Product: Teaching Unplugged is the first book to deal comprehensively with the materials-light, conversation-driven approach to English Language Teaching known as Dogme ELT. It challenges not only the way we view teaching, but also the way we view being a teacher. Judge's comments: ‘The approach is practical, simple, easy to understand. Focus on teaching the people, not the subject’ The Team: Scott Thornbury, Luke Meddings, Lindsay Clandfield, Mike Burghall

— Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 06:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This book "Teaching Unplugged" is specifically about Dogme language teaching, and it was one of the winners of the 2010 ELTon "UK Award for Innovation". This looks like clear evidence of notability to me. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 06:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: DOGME is not a product. It's an approach to language teaching, which in my view is as valid as any other approaches that have characterised language teaching in recent years, e.g. communicative language teaching and constructivism. The general philosophy of DOGME is that students should be the basis of materials rather than any third-party source. GroovyGuzi (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More evidence on the pros and cons of language teaching using the DOGME approach: [2] [3] GroovyGuzi (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I think the article should be kept, I should point out that the two sources you mentioned are not reliable. Sources must be reliable to prove notability. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 14:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Personally, I think the two sources are reliable. The Avatar Languages website is maintained by a well-known language teacher of English called Howard Vickers, who is a prominent advocate of the DOGME approach to language teaching. He has lectured on this topic at international conferences all over the world. There are some very prominent names among the contributors to Yahoo Groups too. I am not a fan of DOGME myself, so I have no axe to grind, but it's an interesting concept and deserves a mention in Wikipedia.GroovyGuzi (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG's nom argument. This is a possible search term and there is mergable content, but there is no reason to have a stand alone article on this topic. -Atmoz (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Before you assert that this topic isn't notable, could you give a reason for the sources I mentioned not proving notability? I'll link to them now to make them more obvious. [4] (pp. 15-18) [5] (from IATEFL Issues 154) [6]. These are all cited in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found some additional coverage in The Guardian: [7], [8], [9], [10]. I also see coverage in books ([11], [12], [13]) and journals ([14], [15]); this, coupled with the existing sources, makes me think this subject is worthy of inclusion. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that all the articles in the Guardian are by Luke Meddings, who is one of the founders of the Dogme movement, and mentioned in the article. Although, of course, there is the fact that the Guardian thought that the subject was notable enough for them to publish the articles. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 09:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dogme is too fuzzy to be called a methodology, too small to be called a movement. It is kept going by a group of fashionista bloggers and tweeters.User:browserbutton —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 25 January 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.