Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connections-based learning
Remember that the issue here is not whether CBL is "good", "beneficial", or "worthy" of being more widely known—I agree that it appears to be all of that. The issue here is Wikipedia's otability|Notability guideline, which is based on the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not based on testimonials from a handful of people who are connected to the subject. The notability of the package called CBL is the issue, not the notability of the various elements of the package such as (to quote the article lead) "online and offline connections with students, experts, organizations, the community, and classrooms around the globe" (e.g., as in dialogic learning), "contacting and interacting with others inside and outside the class" (e.g., as in service-learning), and "giving students a 'real-world' experience" (e.g., as in experiential learning), all of which are also done apart from CBL. If there were a single non-self-published book devoted entirely to CBL, or even a single rigorously peer-reviewed article devoted entirely to CBL in a major journal, the subject would likely pass notability and I wouldn't have bothered to nominate it for deletion. A handful of self-published sources, non-peer-reviewed blog posts, and brief mentions doesn't cut it
— User:Biogeographist, 16:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)