Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collaborative Networked Learning

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. T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Networked Learning

[edit]
Collaborative Networked Learning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Collaborative learning-work (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These two articles were both deleted as uncontested PRODs a couple of days ago. They have now been remade as cut-n-paste jobs, presumably with the same content as before. The PROD rationale was "no evidence of notability", which seems reasonable. The terms do get Google hits but not many. Adding "+Findley" to the search reduces Google Books and Scholar hits to almost nothing, which renders his coverage in the article suspicious of undue weight and promotion. The articles seem to advocate the ideas they cover and to overlap significantly. The author's name makes it very likely that there is a conflict of interests here. DanielRigal (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2011 (UTC) The references cited are not self-published by wikipedia definition--For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information 1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 1. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 2. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 3. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 4. the article is not based primarily on such sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.62.40 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The references cited are not self-published by wikipedia definition--For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information 1.the material is not unduly self-serving; 1. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities); 2. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 3. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 4. the article is not based primarily on such sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.62.40 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No,Dr. Chuck is not affilated with any of the organizaed mentioned since they no longer exist but the work that was conducted there was seminal. The number of hits mentioned were not Google hits but interest of persons using Wikipedia view history. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Chuck (talk • contribs) 02:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you are Dr. Findley, or you are not Dr. Findley? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend view the references in the two article as an important inconsideation of the autencity of the claim. I would recommend consulting with the other see also's perhaps rather than using your own judgement as someone outside the particular field or area of research and education. You will do as you wish since you have taken on the person role to delete entries such as these threein question after five years of continuous use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.62.40 (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I know I'd be on my way to looking for a new thesis advisor if I was caught writing "inconsideation of the autencity", perhaps Dr. Findley's advisor was less demanging.  :-) jheiv talk contribs 05:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the documentation and references need to be cleaned up. If you object to Dr. Findley directly being listed in the article text then a referene should be a simple resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.62.40 (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that concepts which have been available for over five years, reviewed and edited by the readership from time to time is subject to deletion. I wonder if the goal of wikipedia has shifted so that it no longer wants to include and preserve wide range of concepts for future generations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Chuck (talk • contribs) 13:02, 12 March 2011 (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.