Cognitive Coaching is a legitimately developed approached to supervision. It is primarily used in the field of education. Although there is training in using the skills of this approach to coaching it is an approach that is substantiated by the research used to develop it. The article is not meant to be a commercial for the training but is intended to raise awareness of the design and approach for effectively coaching the thinking of others to enhance their effectiveness.
Jadyer 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) John Dyer[reply]
Comment - I have no access to the article so I am not in a position to comment on the correctness of the deletion. However, it is a perfectly respectable approach academically, it is used world-wide and there are plenty of sources available to create an encyclopaedic article see the University of Texas here and the Australian National Schools Network here for example. There are also independent papers such as here. BlueValour 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The speedy deletion rationale was "Wikipedia is not a place for publishing essays)". This is not an accepted rationale for speedy deletion per WP:CSD. On the other hand, here are clear COI problems with the article, and it should probably be quickly improved and well sourced, or it will go to Afd. (I've notified the deleting admin. so he may wish to comment) DGG (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was the deleting admin of Cognitive Coaching, but the article was deleted separately at Cognitive coaching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) by two other admins as a G11 violation who should also be notified. Looking at the original article I deleted the article was a G11 violation as the "essay" was essential just an advertisement for the "quiet revolution going on in North America that is having a significant impact on the type of communication that is taking place between professional educators." The article may be able to eventually become an encyclopedic article, however the article created would have been nearly impossible to be converted into an encyclopedia article and I still agree with my decision at the time to delete it. –– Lid(Talk) 07:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The article was an advertorial at best. There could be an article about it but this isn't it; such an article would require citations from reliable third-party sources and a serious dose of WP:NPOV. Overturning the deletion just because there's no specific reason would be process wonkish. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse all three G11 deletions Clear and obvious advertising, as announced in the opening paragraph. ~ trialsanderrors 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - as per above. Although, I am unable to view deleted edits, from what I've read, it was obviously an advertisement at best. — Rudgetcontributions 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endore deletion - Although it is possible, as User:BlueValour states above, to have an article about this subject that is allowable on Wikipedia, this article is not. It appears to advertise www.cognitivecoaching.com, as stated above. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: - The article was re-created and I have just re-deleted it until a decision is reached here. Khukri 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Keep deleted, that's not a reason to keep an article. The article was deleted because there was nothing to be merged. --Coredesat 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from deleting admin. There was a pretty clear consensus to delete in the AfD discussion. I have directed Wayhorn to the proposed notability guideline at WP:SCHOOL so they can get a better feel for what we're looking for. Caknuck 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Caknuck and others, I have asked our school principal to provide information/sources ASAP for fulfilling primary criterion and additional criteria of Option 2 in WP:SCHOOL page in order to establish notability. Please give us some time. Thanks. Wayhorn 07:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Information provided by the school or individuals associated with it is not a reliable source. The information would need to be verifiable by an outside source. Corvus cornixtalk 18:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - this was a clearly correct closing decision on the discussion. BlueValour 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. No valid reason for keeping given. If the school wants information about it on a Wiki, it should set a wiki up on its own website. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Jason Lau – copyright violations are never restored – GRBerry 23:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Notable Person proper citations listed student of Jiu Wan BibaribaWC 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe not an A7, but the text strikes me as a copyvio. ~ trialsanderrors 13:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'speedy as copyvio no question about it .DGG (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
User:R/EFD – Deletion endorsed, CSD U1 now applies as deletion was agreed upon by "owner" (although the initial reason was still contested). – Daniel 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Was speedy deleted as an attack page. Really wasn't. It was a humor page, and clearly marked as such. Most, if not all, of the entries were "self nominations" for deletion, and I don't see any evidence that anyone complained. If this is to be deleted, it should atleast be given a shot at MFD... Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FFS! I stumbled accross this when some troll had added an inflametory template to Deskana's user page calling for him to be "deleted",and linking to this. I shot it on sight as an attack page. What's going on? How is it funny to call for people to be "deleted"?? How isn't it trolling, or at least a violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I'm failrly bright, and if I mistook it for nastienes, I'm sure others will too. Keep deleted - and speedy close this tendentious DRV.--Docg 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see it's gone. I seem to recall most people who used the damn thing were people who bang on relentlessly about how Wikipedia isn't a social networking site. So, no need for it to be recreated. Nick 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling for "deleting another user" is as humorous as telling someone "you suck, die". Not civil. Not humorous -- drini[meta:] [commons:] 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never requested that it be ultimately kept. I only ask that it be brought to MFD so that all Wikipedia users, and not just admins, should have a chance to judge for themselves as to whether it should be kept. For the record, I agree that its fluff and probably smells of "social networking" and probably has no place on Wikipedia. But a single user should not make that decision. This should be brought to MFD for a greater discussion, and not just sumarily deleted. If MFD decides it should go, that would be wonderful and agreeable. But speedying it seems rash at this point. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You think it should be deleted - but you think delting it was rash? So what you want an MfD of an incivil and trolling page for what? Beurocracy and kicks?--Docg 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I am saying that, while I have the opinion that it should be deleted, I do not personally believe that my single opinion is what Wikipedia is built on, but rather it is built on the consensus of the many editors that it has.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If my opinion is singular, then this DRV will unanimously overturn it.--Docg 02:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong endorse. A cesspool of borderline sexual harassment, of all things. --krimpet⟲ 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: it was already brought to MFD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:R/EFD, I think it a little unfair to say it was being used for trolling, for the most part just people trying to be funny, be it good faith editors or admins, although I can see how someone trolling could used it for the wrong reasons or how other good faith users may take it the wrong way, anyways I don't feel that strongly about it either way. ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with the reason, but keep deleted-I have been meaning to speedy it but didn't get around to it. The humor has been killed, the joke has run it's course. I do want it deleted, however I don't think it was deleted for the right reason. --(Review Me) RParlateContribs@ 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion - and you guys didn't listen to me the first time when I MFDed it. Hmm.... Miranda 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Matthias Hinze – Deletion overturned. Listing at AFD left to editor discretion. – W.marsh 17:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
It had explained the importance of him being a voice actor. Kitty53 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the above editor asked me to comment on the DR as deleting admin. Deleted as nn-bio, with no assertion of notability. Khukri 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - I don't have access to the full text of the deleted article but I am happy to accept that it was properly deleted. However, this is a voice actor with a fair degree of notability, certainly enough to cross the speedy threshold. See for example the German Wikipedia here and IMDb here. I think that the article should be restored so this material can be added. BlueValour 00:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The original article gave a list of 9 roles, without any links or indication of importance, or references, except a link to animenewsnetworkDGG (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD The English text might technically meet A7, but the link to the German version de:Matthias Hinze gives enough starting info to make it possible that the article is improved and kept after community input. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have no problem with this but I should like the extensive info from the German WP page added first. This is largely sourced from IMDb and is needed for an assessment of notability. BlueValour (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are irrelevant for CSD decisions. If there is an assertion of notability the community is asked to find the sources that establish notability. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 11:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
