Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda christas

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 of the debate was Speedy delete as nonsense and non-notable. --Nlu (talk) 08:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Furthermore, the presence of many new users in discussions like this one has made some editors in the past more inclined to suggest deletion. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Non-notable person/educational theory. No coverage in mainstream media that I could find. The {{prod}} tag was removed, so I'm listing here. Kevin 03:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article does not address the subject of its title, instead preferring to talk about a theory which doesn't appear to occur in a phrase anywhere on google. Kuzaar 03:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as edu-cruft, lack of notability. And this part "For verification of copyright permissions, appropriate contact information is available at hcirillo@lindachristas.org" suggests Speedy Delete A8 might apply as a restriction of the GFDL requirements. -- MarcoTolo 04:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Linda Christas' educational theory is an avant garde blending of several doctoral works. It is true that linda christas theory is not as yet in the popular culture, but I would hope that one doesn't have to be a known item like Chubby Checker for the public to accept the theory as a valid addition to the evoltion of educational thought.

After all, if we were simply to look at what we've got out there in terms of established theory, we end up with a top-down disaster. The reason that the United States is in such trouble educationally is that anything that doesn't smack of central control doesn't get a hearing. Surely, that is the very reason for Wikipedia, to give the world up-to-the-minute insights in terms of something that might save kids from the trauma of being in a system patterned after the Prussian military of the 19th century. Both John Dewey and William Harris loved Prussian military manuals. Therefore, most of the educational systems in the world depend on klaxons, bells and whistles, and, of course, punishment to force children to bow their heads. That may have been great for the 19th century, but Linda Christas and its current theories need to be established by definition. I mean why go out of our way to keep only the status quo. If we follow the advice of the previous writers, we will be capping the availability of information necessary for educational progress. I mean linda christas theory has been championed by many well know professionals. For example, a Pulitzer Prize winner, Efrem Zimbalist, endorses linda christas theory wholeheartedly. That is the system that is used at the Curtis institute. Come on fellas, give this theory a break. Sounds like you guys wouldn't have liked Copernicus either, until the gentleman was listed by google of course.

Linda Christas Parent Volunteer (Help Desk - Not an impartial source. My kids are subject to this theory which was explained to me before I enrolled them. Hook line and sinker, I BELIEVE!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.9.144 (talk • contribs)

• Personally, my vote for deletion has nothing to do with my belief (pro or con) in a subject, only in whether keeping an article improves Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. By all means, if you can craft Linda christas into an encyclopedic article with a neutral point-of-view, please do - I would enjoy reading it. As it stands, however, the entry is confusing, un-sourced, and makes little or no verifiable claims of notability. -- MarcoTolo 04:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm really not sure what you mean. When I go to an encyclopedia I want a general reference, a definition for general discussion purposes. For me, the kind of thing I'm hearing that is "best" for Wikipedia I wouldn't understand, and, therefore such an encycolpedia I wouldn't use, and voila, therefore whatever "wisdom" was to be found within the machinations of higher level thought would be lost on me. I say that simple and direct is good. I certainly understand the entry as it has been presented. But, I have no idea what you mean by "un-sourced." Stated differently, I can understand the encyclopedic entry for "boron" without having to have an explanation of quark spin theory. I suppose that would be more complete, but it wouldn't be neutral. Just ask Hawking. His best seller is a best seller because he doesn't confuse the issues with "sourcing." He just gives us the simple definition of the terms like "singularity" and everyone loves his material....for the layman you know. Isn't that really what Widipedia is for. If we are going to make this encyclopedia unreachable to the masses, me included in that bunch, I cry foul........I say foul! and for shame gentlemen. Lily (Parent Volunteer. Linda Christas)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.9.144 (talk • contribs)
• 'Keep' Being somewhat familiar with the well-known authors of which the Linda Christas theory is a blend, I find this to be a worthy addition. Several thousand people worldwide appear to be very familiar with this theory, therefore it is important to include in order to have an 'unabridged' encyclopedia. Google is not the final authority, imo.... it often comes up very short for me when doing research (admittedly specialized).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech27 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. Just dropped into the Help Desk. What in the world is "notability?" If we consider children notable, then linda christas theory is notable. In other words, as another parent of a child subject to linda christas theory, I understand and like what I've read here. I was an early Waldorff school convert. But, there were some additions that I would have liked to see in Steiner's thinking. And, linda christas theory is my answer. Please keep this entry. I will volunteer to improve it over time, but we need to have a seed around which to work, and this article works for me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.143.9.144 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. per nominator. Also a note, the IP address comments will surely be disregarded. (Notorious4life 05:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete It may very well be a decent tutoring service/child advocacy, although I really can't say through all the hype on the various websites. However, it is not notable. The so-called Linda christas theory is simply what tutoring services have done in most communities for years -- and have helped many students, although it is not normally packaged so well. Ted 05:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on the merits of the article. As for "Linda Christas' educational theory is an avant garde blending of several doctoral works. It is true that linda christas theory is not as yet in the popular culture, but I would hope that one doesn't have to be a known item like Chubby Checker for the public to accept the theory as a valid addition to the evoltion of educational thought." well that falls under both not a crystal ball and bad rhetoric. Teke 06:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and other delete commentary. Fluit 06:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, although I'm almost tempted to keep as an article on controversy surrounding the "educational" method. Apparently there's a Rip Off Report discussion about her [1]. --Alan Au 07:34, 3 May 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.