Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student-teacher ratio

Add links
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 no consensus. Seems the article is in need of repair but covers a notable topic. Orderinchaos 13:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student-teacher ratio[edit]

Student-teacher ratio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The current content is simply an essay not an article. I'm not sure what could be here except a blatantly obvious dicdef. An article on trends in this ratio in a given nation might be writable, but a general article?? Is there such a thing as a universal phenomena of student-teacher ratios? I think not. Sweeping generalisations like "Governments tend to argue" are not encouraging. Delete the essay, and remove the backlinks. Docg 01:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep topic is notable but many concerns above are valid. Given its prominent use in college rankings etc. it seems an article could be written on this. JJL (talk) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tat the term is notable is not in doubt. But notability ISN'T my reason for nomination, so your comment seems strange. Could you outline what an article on this could contain?--Docg 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a concept, it is a definition. There's a difference. Anyway, notability is NOT the reason I brought it here, so your comment slightly confuses me. How can an encyclopedic article be constructed here. I can't see it, if you can, will you explain?--Docg 09:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have gathered, articles are to be deleted not on the basis of what they are, but what they could be. If the article isn't well-written, it is to be fixed, not deleted. I happen to know that there is a body of theory on student-teacher ratios at all levels of education, and that it impacts student learning, union negotiations, and college rankings. Therefore the article should be improved from whatever state it was in that prompted you to nominate it from deletion. Blast Ulna (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondering, could you find us some sources on this body of theory? Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could, but my boss is leaning on me to get some work done. If the article does not get sourced by the end of this AfD, then I would be okay with it being deleted, as long as there is no ban on it being recreated in a better form. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A simple Google search suffices. Newst stories and the like: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. These don't just mention the statistics in passing--they are focused on it. Google Scholar: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]; Walsh, M. (2006, January 23), "Vermont’s lowest in the nation student-teacher ratio comes under scrutiny", The Burlington Free Press. JJL (talk) 01:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, poor writing is not a valid reason for deletion, that is what WP:CLEANUP is for. This subject is notable and certainly (at least here in the UK) gets a lot of coverage in the mainstream media and it shouldn't be too hard to find some good references - Dumelow (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, poor writing is not the reason for deletion. This is not a subject. Educational resources in nation x, would be a subject, this is a term. Again, I ask what could be written about here that would not belong somewhere else? --Docg 15:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A repackaging of self-evident words covering a concept that is also self-evident is a reason to delete. There is no reason to keep. This is beyond "poor wording" and right down to the bone of "nothing to say." Student teacher ratio, Teacher student ratio, Teacher students ratio, Students teacher ratio, Student-teacher ratio, etc., are all permutations of a subject that is well known, obvious, and not worth discussion on its own terms. In a general discussion of pedagogy, the ratio of students to teacher is quite significant, but as a concept isolated from that, it is not. I.e., if you're not talking about teaching, you're not talking about student/teacher ratios, and if you are talking about teaching, then discuss the subject there. This is a non-useful title, a fragmentation of content, and a subject that cannot be intelligently discussed independently of its context. (These ratios matter differently in kindergarten, college, and elementary school, and they matter differently in science and humanities and art classes. To try to speak of them otherwise is foolish.) Utgard Loki (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Blast Ulna. Also, Utgard Loki says that "these ratios matter differently in kindergarten, college, and elementary school, and they matter differently in science and humanities and art classes". That's precisely the kind of issue that could be discussed in this article! Legislation of student/teacher ratios is already mentioned in the article and is also an important aspect. Saying that this topic is not worth discussing in isolation from pedagogy seems to me like saying that atomic mass can't be discussed in isolation from atom... --Itub (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a dictionary, and with no sources proving the topic is notable as an article topic, no reason to keep. David Fuchs (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All it is is an explanation on the term and its meaning. As said above, WP is not a dictionary. This article really has no use. In addition, just as my opinion, nobody is really going to be researching on Wikipedia what a student-teacher ratio is because the term is self-explanatory for anybody with a third-grade education. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 21:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Keep After reading some comments that were posted after mine, I really changed my mind. This article does have potential to actually be something, it just needs a rewrite and maybe some more info. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 14:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A standard term for a basic concept in educational statistics, and in popular use also. the basic meaning may be obvious, the full significance can be discussed., That's why its appropriate for an encyclopedia as well as a dictionary. DGG (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. I find it hard to believe that some people want to delete this because "the definition of the concept is simple". This is an indicator with a simple definition but with a significance that is far from simple. I see it similar to population density, for example; while the definition of population density is simple, its relationship with society, the environment, the economy, politics, crime, etc. is a fertile field for study that can be treated encyclopedically. Now, regarding the alleged lack of notability and sources. Google scholar gives 5540 results for "student teacher ratio" ( 3400 for "student teacher ratios", 2820 for "teacher student ratio", and 1410 for "teacher student ratios"), 4950 results for "pupil teacher ratio", 3400 for "pupil teacher ratios, 2250 for "teacher pupil ratio", and 1380 for "teacher pupil ratios") and 45,000 results for the related concept of "class size". Sure, many of these hits are passing mentions, but some are entirely focused on this topic and there are even books written about it. Some examples of articles/books that look interesting (note: I haven't read them yet):
I'm not saying that all of these articles need to be cited, but they prove IMO the notability of the topic. --Itub (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Student-teacher_ratio&oldid=1071057343"