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 per below arguments adn original authors blanking. --Tikiwont 10:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proprioceptive Method[edit]

Proprioceptive Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Language learning method. Original research or close to it. No evidence of notability. -- RHaworth 04:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Very deep thought indeed. Quote: Proprioception “is a . . . distinct sensory modality that provides feedback solely on the status of the body internally. It is the sense that indicates whether the body is moving with required effort, as well as where the various parts of the body are located in relation to each other.” Having no feedback other than on "the status of the body internally" -- how? with what kinds of sensor? -- we must infer that the language learners can't hear their own speech, hear or see others' reactions to their own speech, read their own writing, read or see others' reactions to their own writing, etc. This is emphasis on I-language carried to a nutty extreme. But of course (i) it's not for me to judge on the sanity of foreign language methodology, and (ii) en:WP provides coverage of plenty of other nutty theories. So is this stuff notable? It appears at first sight to come with a pile of impressive references, but a second look reveals that these are works on other areas of language, and don't describe the "Proprioceptive Method". Googling for the phrase brings up a book titled Writing the Mind Alive: The Proprioceptive Method for Finding Your Authentic Voice. Rather a ghastly cover on this paperback, but my tastes aside this is not a work about language learning. Googling for "proprioceptive method" NOT "mind alive" brings just 27 hits. Not atypical of the 27: Until: What does this icon mean? / You are reading a Whole Write, a proprioceptive method of spiritual practice designed to enhance the consciousness of the writer. I am drunk. I am writing in a beautiful, blissful, oh-so-subtle mode of awareness which is incredibly ... Ack. Anyway, not language learning. Non-notable, DELETE. -- Hoary 06:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If you look back a couple versions it even says, "Because of its recent introduction, the primary description of this method comes from publications on the website itself in the books, Learning Spoken English and Learning a Spoken Second Language. A description of the method is given in Chapter 1 of the former book, Teaching Your Tongue to Speak English. Secondary sources are also becoming available, resulting from the website’s encouragement to publish and critically evaluate public domain material which is made available on that website." Adam Cuerden ^talk 07:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: this is an ad for the website freeenglishnow.com by any other name. There is no evidence that even a book with the title "Learning a Spoken Second Language" exists. By "book", we are to understand, a pdf file hosted on that website is referred to. --dab (𒁳) 08:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else: non-notable and complete bollocks, to boot. Moreschi ^Talk 09:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - not opposed to deletion, but would like to see the proponent fill out the article in an encylopedic way, rather than promotional one. --Rocksanddirt 17:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The original author has blanked the article with the phrase "Removed by original submitter. The criticisms were well founded. The article requires considerably more work." Think that counts as an author-request speedy? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:26, 26 October 2007 (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.