Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Learning-Disadvantage Gap

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. The article is still

Articles for Creation wizard to submit it for reconsideration. Nakon 07:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Learning-Disadvantage Gap

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. Λυδ α cιτγ 11:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

delete - Blatant OR. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Statement from author; was posted to users' talk pages, and moved here by FourViolas (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the Four Viola's and Audacity's notice about deleting the Learning-Disadvantage Gap article, please consider the following points:

The Learning-Disadvantage Gap report at first inspection may incorrectly seem like a document of original concepts, especially by someone not immersed in the convoluted world of educational standardized high-stakes testing systems in use today, and the growing movement in opposition to it, but in fact it is not. The anti-standardized high-stakes testing movement is not my own. I am but a pawn in the movement. The Learning-Disadvantage Gap is a collection of original articles and studies that I have accumulated over the past five and a half years from reliable separately published articles not yet compiled in a format easily accessible to the public. Not even the Learning-Disadvantage Gap words and concept is original, as I have borrowed from references as well.

To clear up any possible misunderstanding, the Gap is compiled and written exclusively by myself with technical assistance by my staff. The name, Music Teacher’s Club, is just that, a name, and this is my very first proposed entry to Wikipedia. I am the owner of a music store, Johnny Thompson Music.com, and chair of Parents and Students for Music and Arts aka AllArtsAllKids.org.

Having studied Wikipedia policies I believe the Gap avoids cherry-picking of reference articles in a negative sense and synthesis of combining separate ideas to reach any conclusions. Actually, the report does not reach conclusions other that what is from any of the two hundred plus references. All two hundred plus references are interconnected by one goal: educational equality for all.

I do not pick references that agree with my personal view, rather, I learn first from each and every reference before I report on it. I am the student and messenger, not the teacher. That said, the report may be the first of its kind that combines original works of others that I am aware of.

This is a neutral report which includes reporting on current educational inequities and non-compliances of statutory and education laws by the United States Department of Education.

The collection of two hundred plus references to the Gap consists of works by U.S. Department of Education, K-12 teachers, principals, and district superintendents, university professors and studies, parents and students, civil rights groups, court cases, constitutional attorneys, statistical groups, arts advocacy groups, and more. Just one reference alone includes a list of five hundred plus university professors who as a group are petitioning the U.S. Department of Education specifically to stop test-focused reforms particularly NCLB (No Child Left Behind).

Although written by a potpourri of writers, each with their own expressed views, the goal of each and every reference, and within the stop high-stakes testing movement in general, is equal learning-opportunities for the disadvantaged and all students in America, without regard to their socio-economic and academic standings.

The Learning-Disadvantage Gap, and in fact big Gov’s standardized high-stakes testing, is not generally known by the American public. The national mainstream media has yet to cover the movement and to spark a national debate. That said, there is a substantial and growing grassroots movement, starting on the East Coast, that has tens of thousands of students “opting out” of March and April NCLB, Common Core, and other state test-based no-excuses high-stakes yearly testing. I will mention at this point that my group, Parents and Students for Music and Arts, has a twitter account and am proud to report that the largest independent anti-high-stakes testing group of teachers follows us on Twitter.

I consider this Wikipedia report, an honor should it be accepted, a very much needed public service article. It is my plan to continue upgrading quite often. Currently, we are doing so almost daily. I believe it to be a wonderful venue for educating people on the subject with limited time to invest. Also I believe it is so important that parents of economic and academic disadvantaged kids have a source to learn from that offers hope. The Gap welcomes contributions as well as other points of view from Wikipedia’s very large at-large contributing public editors. We are looking forward to having an active Wikipedia article.

JCharlesThompson (talk) 05:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but merge some sources and information into
WP:SYNTHESIS
, which is firmly verboten. This report is great and useful, but publishing great original research is not what Wikipedia is for.

Nonetheless, I think the article has a lot of usefully collected information which could improve

WP:DUE. FourViolas (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello Four Violas. Thank you for your kind words and advice on your last talk and articles for deletion pages updates. The sticking point is the topic of originality, so let’s see if we can get to the bottom of that. Wikipedia (WP) title of “No original research: OR is used to refer to material for which no reliable, published sources exist.” I agree with that because all of my references are indeed published previously by reliable sources listed in our earlier communication to you. That said, I respectfully ask you to be very specific and quote WP published policies whereby you reached your conclusion to delete.

As stated in my first response to you, “The Learning-Disadvantage Gap is a collection of original articles and studies that I have accumulated over the past five and a half years from reliable separately published articles not yet compiled in a format easily accessible to the public. Not even the Learning-Disadvantage Gap words and concept is original, as I have borrowed from references as well.” In your response you quoted me, “unfortunately, ‘[compiled from] reliable separately published articles not yet compiled in a format easily accessible to the public’ is a description of high-quality WP:SYNTHESIS, which is firmly verboten.” And then you continued that, “this report is great and useful, but publishing great original research is not what Wikipedia is for.” To this, however, I respond that WP publicly states that “synthesis of published material serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.” My follow-up to that is that all carefully researched references supply their own conclusions and in numerous cases they are direct quotes.

Apparently I was not as clear as I could have been with my quote. I was somewhat clumsily trying to say in the rush to finish my reply that all the articles have been previously published in a format accessible to anyone interested. But to my knowledge – and I may be mistaken about this – I may or may not be the first person to read and compile these original works referencing each and every one on WP. Furthermore, to quote WP again, “to demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.” I suggest that any and all synthesis that is accomplished fully complies with WP policies that we also touched upon in our first direct communication to you on 24 March 2015.

Thank you for your continued discourse. In all due respect, we strongly believe this article merits a stand-alone WP entry and thereby we must ask you to consider our points and that you defend or alter your stance.

JCharlesThompson (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Thompson,

Thanks for taking the time to explain your rationale. From my point of view, the problem with the article is that your conclusion seems to be a "conclusion not stated by the sources". I.e., although you quote directly the conclusions of the sources, you do so in order to reach a conclusion of your own. As such, the article is, in your own words, "partially investigative", which means it's not appropriate for a Wikipedia article, since we only cite other's investigations but do not do any investigating of our own. Λυδ α cιτγ 05:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Four Violas. In my communication number two of Friday, March 27, 2015, I misused the word “synthesis” found near the end of the third paragraph. Please edit out synthesis and insert “reporting.”

My understanding of WP’s definition of synthesis is that the extraction of data, ideas, concepts, and/or conclusions in order to reach a separate and original conclusion, is prohibited. I apologize that previously I may have not made myself clear regarding OR and synthesis. It is my intention to report in the WP article of what the primary purpose is of each of the two hundred references in a “salad” as opposed to a “soup” format that is in a user-friendly single platform. My aim is to conform to WP policies with the ultimate goal of reaching more information-seeking people.

Big gov is still calling all the education shots. Therefore, educators, parents, and students need all the public awareness possible. Please accept the above mentioned correction with my apology.

Hello again Λυδαcιτγ. My thanks to you and Four Violas for hanging in there with me. Since my goal is to satisfy WP policies to the best of my ability I will see about eliminating the partially investigative parts of the article. It’s already available to the public anyway. Informational reporting is my primary focus. Give me a few days.

Also, I agree that I should be reporting the facts and leaving the conclusions to my readers, they can do that on their own. I will work on this concept as well. Many of the reference articles do arrive at their own conclusions but most are just expressing their experiences within the system. As this is my first attempt at a WP article, I appreciate the experienced input I get from both you and Four Violas.

JCharlesThompson 24.176.192.66 (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 16:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Follow up:

Hello again Λυδαcιτγ and Four Violas,

I’d like to start off by saying that I have not always expressed myself clearly and I have given you and Four Violas the wrong impression at times. Once again I want to apologize for that. Music is my profession, not self expression through writing. I always think that people understand what I mean just because I do, but, I will in the future be more careful.

Having once again reviewed WP policies, I want to reinforce that these are also my policies in both letter and intent. These policies include those of OR, synthesis, neutrality, cherry picking, and verifiability of authoritative references with author notability. Some references may already have reached their own conclusions. My job is to give voice only to their experiences and conclusions regardless of my personal opinion. I have edited and removed throughout my article whatever I think is questionable. I continue to include references from the Department of Education taking in to account their differing points of view and stated policies.

If you find another suspect entry please let me know. I have made so many recent changes that my references have become out of place, and I need more time to reposition, add more, and to continue upgrading in general. In addition, your editors will always have the opportunity to revise as WP allows. Lastly, I am likely going to change the title to “Academic-Opportunity Discrimination,” the reasons for which can be elaborated more in future correspondence.

Thank you for taking the time to engage this important article.

JCharlesThompson (talk) 02:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sorry, it's just plain OR. I've no problem with the author putting together an essay based on sources unavailable to the general public. He just can't post it on Wikipedia,
which still isn't a webhost. Nha Trang ^Allons! 17:25, 8 April 2015 (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.