Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic Technology Specialist


 * 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. Wizardman 15:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Academic Technology Specialist

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not-notable per WP:N. The school maybe notable, but individual programs, not so much. ukexpat (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC) The program has been cited in a number of online publications including: Cncoleman (talk) 03:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of majors offered by schools. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not delete - The Academic Technology Specialist program at Stanford is not a major (as suggested by Dhartung). It is a unique organization that is the first of its kind in Academic Technology (or Educational Technology) and has served as a model for similar programs elsewhere, such as:
 * The College of William and Mary
 * Colorado College
 * Lake Forest
 * University of Wisconsin-Madison
 * Brandeis
 * Red Hat Magazine
 * Stanford Alumni Magazine, March 2007
 * Speaking of Computers, January 24, 2007
 * Speaking of Computers, January 23, 2008
 * Interaction Magazine
 * SULAIR News
 * Educause
 * Duke University staff site
 * Stanford News Service, October 26, 2005
 * Stanford News Service, January 30, 2002
 * These articles are mostly from Stanford publications, and thus don't qualify as independent sources, or are merely brief mentions of the program. I still don't see the evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that is required under WP:N. — BRMo (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment As anyone found any independent sources yet? -- Shark face  217  03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes:
 * Wendy Pradt Lougee. Diffuse Libraries: Emergent Roles for the Research Library in the Digital Age. Council on Library and Information Resources (CLIR), August 2002.
 * Stephen C. Ehrmann, Steven W. Gilbert, Flora McMartin, Harold Abelson, and Philip D. Long. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of Faculty-Developed Academic Software: A Study of Five iCampus Projects". Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory Technical Report. MIT, 20 Oct 2007.
 * Sarah Young. “An interview with Michael Keller”. Library Collections, Acquisitions, and Technical Services 26, 1 (Spring 2002): 61-74.
 * Skrossa (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - legitimate program, needs to integrate sources into the artilce. Bearian (talk) 13:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, overwrought buzzwordy job description mixed with non-notable training program(s). AnteaterZot (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Jerry   talk ¤ count/logs 22:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - seems to be notable --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Looks notable enough to me per the sources given above. Celarnor Talk to me  23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, All the sources are either bare mentions or not independent. If the article was correctly written (fluff removed) it would be at best a dictionary definition. Blast Ulna (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article as it exists pertains just to Stanford, and amounts to an advertisement for their initiative.. Based on the sources in the article and above, it does not apply exactly anywhere else. If you can think of a way to write a more general article, with a more suitable title, that would be another matter. As a local program within a single library, it should not get an article. I have the highest respect for Michael Keller and his projects, but that's not the question here.  DGG (talk) 03:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or at best merge into the schools article. Every degree at a University is not notable on its own.  Looking notable is not the same as being notable and this article is apparently not notable as written.  Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a course of study, major, academic program or degree as some have argued (Vegaswikian, Dhartung). Those have been posted, though, see Experimental Study Group at MIT. What is described here is an organization that employs several full time professional staff with a mission unique within any university. There are independent substantive articles about this listed by Skrossa that need to be integrated into the article. Cncoleman (talk) 06:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Experimental Study Group article needs to be sourced or deleted too. Blast Ulna (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.