- 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Big Writing
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Big Writing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Derpdart56 ( talk) 13:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The tenderer did not provide reasons for the non-notability. The article is properly referenced. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 14:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep properly referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottWillis45 ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment in what way is this article conceivably correctly referenced?
- Ref 1 is a school newsletter from Ardsley school, who presumably bought the product, so they're not independent. It's just their explanation to the school's parents about what they're doing. It's evidence that a school used it, but it's primary, not a secondary source (newspaper, book, educationalist) writing about the scheme from outside.
- Ref 2 is a pdf of unknown authorship, definitely a primary source.
- Ref 3, 4, 5, 6 point to amazon, and are all case studies written by the subject of the article
- Ref 7 is basically a blog, a self-published teacher help resource
- Ref 8 is an index page pointing at andrelleducation.co.uk's own pages
- Ref 9 is by the subject of the article
- Ref 10 is currently unrelated to the article
- Ref 11, 12 even the archived version is currently a dead link
- Ref 13 and 15 are both school sites providing information about the scheme, and are identical, suggesting that they're merely reproductions of the information the scheme gives schools to give to parents.
- Ref 14 is by the subject of the article
- I am seeing no independent coverage whatsoever. I'm not saying the scheme isn't notable, but it's insane to consider this article properly referenced. The original nominator should have specified the reason for nomination, but given that they didn't, may I suggest: produced by a single purpose account with possible COI, and heavily edited by another single purpose account, obviously promotional, devoid of any independent sourcing. It's hard to search for independent secondary sources because of the generic name, and because any primary school that's used it will have something on their website about it for parents. The school sites are, of course, evidence that it's been used widely, which is great, but they're also primary sources (pun unintentional...). The article desperately needs a reference to an educationalist or someone else. The best I can come up with is an education organisation's report [1], but this isn't ideal. Can anyone find something better? Elemimele ( talk) 19:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are largely promotional and not independent. Most of them don't give substantial coverage of the subject, and most if not all of them are not independent sources, being by the creator of "big writing", or on web sites selling materials related to it, etc. Also the Wikipedia article is unambiguously promotional. (It was created as blatant spam by a single-purpose account which also created several other pages, now deleted, advertising "big writing". Its promotional tone has subsequently been drastically reduced by other editors, but it's still unmistakably there.) JBW ( talk) 20:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete none of the sources are the indepdent, reliable, 3rd party sources upon which workable Wikipedia articles need to be built. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I found a lot of sources that appear to be in some way promotional, but nothing that was clearly WP:SIGCOV Jacona ( talk) 12:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Big Writing
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Big Writing ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Derpdart56 ( talk) 13:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. The tenderer did not provide reasons for the non-notability. The article is properly referenced. ✍A.WagnerC ( talk) 14:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep properly referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottWillis45 ( talk • contribs) 14:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 15:35, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Comment in what way is this article conceivably correctly referenced?
- Ref 1 is a school newsletter from Ardsley school, who presumably bought the product, so they're not independent. It's just their explanation to the school's parents about what they're doing. It's evidence that a school used it, but it's primary, not a secondary source (newspaper, book, educationalist) writing about the scheme from outside.
- Ref 2 is a pdf of unknown authorship, definitely a primary source.
- Ref 3, 4, 5, 6 point to amazon, and are all case studies written by the subject of the article
- Ref 7 is basically a blog, a self-published teacher help resource
- Ref 8 is an index page pointing at andrelleducation.co.uk's own pages
- Ref 9 is by the subject of the article
- Ref 10 is currently unrelated to the article
- Ref 11, 12 even the archived version is currently a dead link
- Ref 13 and 15 are both school sites providing information about the scheme, and are identical, suggesting that they're merely reproductions of the information the scheme gives schools to give to parents.
- Ref 14 is by the subject of the article
- I am seeing no independent coverage whatsoever. I'm not saying the scheme isn't notable, but it's insane to consider this article properly referenced. The original nominator should have specified the reason for nomination, but given that they didn't, may I suggest: produced by a single purpose account with possible COI, and heavily edited by another single purpose account, obviously promotional, devoid of any independent sourcing. It's hard to search for independent secondary sources because of the generic name, and because any primary school that's used it will have something on their website about it for parents. The school sites are, of course, evidence that it's been used widely, which is great, but they're also primary sources (pun unintentional...). The article desperately needs a reference to an educationalist or someone else. The best I can come up with is an education organisation's report [1], but this isn't ideal. Can anyone find something better? Elemimele ( talk) 19:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence whatever of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The references are largely promotional and not independent. Most of them don't give substantial coverage of the subject, and most if not all of them are not independent sources, being by the creator of "big writing", or on web sites selling materials related to it, etc. Also the Wikipedia article is unambiguously promotional. (It was created as blatant spam by a single-purpose account which also created several other pages, now deleted, advertising "big writing". Its promotional tone has subsequently been drastically reduced by other editors, but it's still unmistakably there.) JBW ( talk) 20:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete none of the sources are the indepdent, reliable, 3rd party sources upon which workable Wikipedia articles need to be built. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I found a lot of sources that appear to be in some way promotional, but nothing that was clearly WP:SIGCOV Jacona ( talk) 12:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon ( talk) 06:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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.