Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teaching English in Italy

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 ~ trialsanderrors 09:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching English in Italy

Very superficial article, unencyclopedic, seems to fall under WP:NOT. Deprodded, the prodder suggested "redirect & merge with Teaching English as a Foreign Language", and I agree. The original contributor objected to merging so I don't want to carry it out without community discussion. Accurizer 22:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, article created by Omadaf, who tried to spam Teaching English as a Foreign Language, then nominating it for deletion after spam was reverted, and finally creating this article when the AFD was closed. On a related note, this AFD was attempted to be closed by 152.91.9.144 [1].--Hús ö nd 01:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, it wasn't "attempted" to be closed, it was closed... but moving on from that your "per nom" suggestions ignores the fact that here the nominator says "redirect & merge." This is not a deletion issue, so this should be (re)closed an this worked out on the article talk page. - 152.91.9.144 01:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk page.--Hús ö nd 01:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was expressing the prodder's suggestion, which seemed reasonable to me. However, I felt this is very borderline and realized other editors may feel it should be deleted. Further, I was not aware of the history raised by Husond prior to making this nom, which makes this discussion even more useful. On a side note, it would have been nice if you contacted me before trying to close the nom. Accurizer 02:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del. No content. Hardly we are going to have zillions of articles, kinda Teaching chemistry in Zimbabwe unless the issue is of some prominence, like, Teaching Islam in Israel. `'mikkanarxi 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:ISNOT/WP:V etc. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 02:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, my second preference, stubbify and merge into Teaching English as a Foreign Language if references and reliable sources are found by the end of this debate. If not, closer, please assume my primary option (delete) as my input. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 03:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam for the book/s mentioned. Such information is there is should be - and is - better covered in the article on the general practice. It may well be that the Italian experience is fundamentally different from the norm, in which case a well-sourced article should be written, but this ain't it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not superficial. It states the essential facts of the topic which are documented by the books mentioned. One of the books is out of print and I have no interest in promoting it. I objected to the merge with "Teaching English as a Foreign Language" because that article is blatant advertising for unnecessary certificate courses. I did not spam that article; I tested and demonstrated its lack of a neutral point of view by linking to a site with a different opinion. The link was removed because it conflicts with that article's primary purpose, which is to sell certificate courses marketed by the sites that article links to. Is it not odd and even suspicious that none of the crticisms I'm making of "Teaching English as a Foreign Language" are being addressed, let alone denied? Is that site not blatant advertising? Are there any links that question the value of certificate courses? The value of my article is that it adds balance to the "quick qualification" certificate business, which is entrenched in other articles on teaching abroad. What a tragedy if my article is deleted while the certificate sellers remain unopposed and unquestioned! omadaf2 Omadaf2 07:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 28 Nov 06. Please see my user page for more info. Omadaf2 07:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm not sure that it does state the essential facts of the topic - at least, not in a way which makes the case for this article existing by itself and separate to the more general one on the practice of teaching English as a foreign language. This article makes the comment that there is demand for English teachers in Italy (which is a statement not explicitly made in the larger article, although it does say that demand throughout the EU is high). It explains where the teachers teach (again, not explictly stated in the larger article, although I'd be amazed if this were a controversial statement to merge - are there any countries where TEFL would not be done "in state schools and universities as well as private schools, and/or teach private lessons"?). It explains that a certain sub-set of people are preferred (a statement largely mirrored in the larger article). It explains where jobs are to be found (which isn't mentioned in the larger article, but again could easily be generalised and merged - unless there are places where the international press and universities in the target country aren't the places to look). The final sentence is also a general one, as it is just as much the responsibility for teachers in Lesotho or Tibet to learn the local language as it is those in Italy. The question must therefore be asked whether there's anything specifically important about the Italian TEFL experience that requires its own article.

In terms of the links on the larger article, there may well be a number of spammy links (I'm not qualified to comment on that matter). If that's the case, that article should be cleaned up. The solution is not to create this article and then complain when people say that it doesn't seem to need to be here. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for your input. I'm new to Wikipedia so I don't know how important technical questions are (in this case, whether a separate article is needed or appropriate), but in my opinion it is secondary to the main issue: Wikipedia is being exploited to sell unnecessary certificate courses by the article "Teaching English as a Foreign Language," and my attempt to contribute more balance by adding a link that expresses a different opinion was quickly deleted and itself called "spam!" The bottom line is that my neutral article is up for deletion, but the certificate sellers' article isn't. If I delete the commerical links from their article I'm sure I'll be accused of "vandalism." Why doesn't an editor delete those links? A separate article is needed because "Teaching English as a Foreign Language" doesn't allow disagreement with their marketing strategy. Omadaf2 09:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the editor that initially marked the article with the {{prod}} tag. As per mikkanarxi, unless there is sufficient notability in the subject matter, there is no need for a glut of Teaching X in Y articles. There is nothing in the article that cannot be transposed to any other country / language, and doing so would not change the context. There is not enough material (yet, at least) for even a stub. Tiswas^(t/c) 10:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that this is a conflict between a teacher with long experience who is telling the truth about teaching abroad (me) vs. salespeople who are using Wikipedia to market unnecessary certificate courses, i.e. the writers and editors of "Teaching English as a Foreign Language" (TEFL). Deleting my article or "merging it" with the latter sounds like a prime candidate for an investigation of conflict of interest. My recommendation to delete TEFL for some very good reasons was greeted by a recommendation of "speedy keep" without even addressing the specific violations of Wiki policies. Are the people who want to "merge" or delete my article prepared to show that they aren't in the business of selling certificates? Forgive me if I sound indignant, but where is the concern about what the writers/editors of "Teaching English as a Foreign Language" are doing to Wikipedia? Omadaf2 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Omadaf2, it is inappropriate to preface each follow-up comment with keep (or for that matter, delete). The closing admin will need to assess consensus and prefacing each of your comments with keep or delete makes it look as if you are voting multiple times. Since you are unfamiliar with the AFD process, this is most likely an innocent mistake. However, please be aware that it would otherwise look as if you were trying to "stuff the ballot box" in a clumsy and obvious manner. I have taken the liberty of changing your subsequent 'keep's to 'Comments' to make it easier for the closing admin to determine the consensus. --Richard 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I disagree with Omadaf2. The content of this article does not provide sufficient value to warrant keeping. If there really are multiple books on the topic, surely more content could be added to this article. Until such time, I vote for deletion without prejudice against recreating the article with more substantive comment. --Richard 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I looked at the Teaching of English as a Foreign Language article. It does not seem to have the violations that Omadaf2 is complaining about. Perhaps the violations have been removed? In any event, I did come across the Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Hong Kong article and I think it should be deleted for the same reasons that this article should be deleted. --Richard 23:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reply to Richard: OK, I'm willing to add more content. Could you suggest exactly what kind of content would make this article's continued existence likely? Is there a time limit? Omadaf2 14:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article provides little useful information aside from to promote a couple of books. Seraphimblade 17:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article cites two books to document what the article says. It does not "promote" anything. The information may not be useful to you, but it could save young people hundreds of dollars on unnecessary certificate courses promoted by my critics in their article "Teaching English as a Foreign Language." Here are some quotes from the "Teaching English as a Foreign Language" article.

“The basic qualification” is a “TESL or TEFL certificate” Blatant advertising and meaningless other than expressing “The ones you should buy, see our external links for easy ordering”

“the two most commonly recognized certificates” are the UCLES CELTA and the Trinity CertTESOL Unverifiable and blatant advertising.

“The typical” (unverifiable) U.S. qualification is a TESOL “although many shorter certificates exist” Irrelevant Who cares if shorter certificates exist unless this is a shopping guide?

“Schools willing to take untrained staff typically run short courses” Unverifiable How common are schools that force teachers to pay for training? VERY common only on the sites that sell certificate courses.

“More Information on the TEFL Profession” Links are Blatant advertising If your site steers visitors to buy certificate courses, advertise here. Any links to sites that question the value of short certificate courses will be quickly deleted.

Genuine want ads for teachers in the international press rarely mention certificates as preferred, let alone required, but on the sites that sell such courses the percentage of ads shoots up amazingly. Attempt to contact those "employers" to confirm the ads and you receive no reply. I wonder why. Omadaf2 18:57, 30 November 2006 (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.