Talk:CATESOL

This is the talk page for CATESOL. It should be used to discuss changes proposed or changes made to the CATESOL page. This is NOT the place for discussions about CATESOL, or any other topics.

Post your comments, suggestions, and questions here! Use the "+" tab at the top to add your comments.

Third party sources

Just glancing over this article, it would strongly benefit from the citation of some third party sources. Has CATESOL been described in newspapers, pedagogical journals, government reports? Any of those would help verify that the organization is well-known, and has been written about by those not affliated with it, which is a requirement of Wikipedia articles. Nevertheless, good work on what is here. Hope this helps. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable?

I'm not at all sure that this organization meets the notability criteria at this (proposed) guideline: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations). I'd personally prefer that the information in this article be boiled down to about two paragraphs and added to the TESOL Inc. article. For example, the mission statement in this article is boring, boring, boring to anyone other than a member, and probably even to most of them; it's on the web pages of the organization and is just filler, and wouldn't merit mention if this article were incorporated in the one of the larger organization.

If the content in this article were merged into the TESOL Inc. article, then a redirect could be put here. And, of course, should CATESOL become notable in the future (lots of press coverage, becomes separate organization, whatever), then it could always be spun off into a separate article then.

I'm not going to do the merge myself unless the author of this article so requests (and no one else objects); it would only take a few minutes but it's not worth a fight if someone really thinks this article should remain separate. But without some independent sources, this separate article is in danger of an AfD at any time. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 02:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This should definitely not be merged with the TESOL Inc., as they are separate organizations. CATESOL is an affiliate of TESOL, but their conferences, governance, publication, and memberships are separate. I'll attempt to add more of relevance to the article later, about CATESOL's political involvement/activism, effects on the California school system, prominent researchers who work with CATESOL, etc. --Wintersweet 05:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC) (oops, had to log in to sign)

Please, you self-appointed overseers of law and order on Wikipedia, leave the CATESOL page in its place, for the reasons given just above. It's not like we're wasting band width here. The "Notability" rule is highly subjective, is it not? Outsiders to any group that pass judgment on its "notability" run the risk of appearing like fascists. In defense (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Actually Wikipedia's notability guidelines are pretty objective - if there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of CATESOL itself, then we can have a full page on it. If that coverage does not exist, then the page gets merged, redirected, or deleted. For the full explanation see the notability guidelines for organizations, and you might also want to read the quick guide to notability. Notability on Wikipedia doesn't have anything to do with being inside or outside a group, or with a page being useful - it is entirely about the sources. If you know of any sources that have this kind of coverage then maybe we can keep the page, but if the sources don't exist then I'm afraid the rules say it can't remain as a standalone article. Feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any questions about the processes involved here. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Sigh. Have it your way. Leaving it as a separate page (a) hurts no one nor no thing; (b) uses next to no bandwidth and costs nothing; (c) does not compromise Wikipedia's quality in any way. The insistence on eliminating it (a) violates the spirit of Wikipedia as open source and free (and its 4th pillar, "Wikipedia has no firm rules") by perpetuating power structures within the organization that dominate the discourse; (b) insults thousands of members of an association that hold it in high regard as their professional organization and give their lives to it, regardless of whether it's ever "been in the papers." Merging it, in this case, is also highly inaccurate: it's not merely an appendage of TESOL. I would never dream of eliminating someone else's group, and I would hope that other reasonable editors would feel the same. But sure, go ahead and merge it. In defense (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)