Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blended 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 Keep. Cbrown1023 02:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Blended learning

 * — (View AfD)

Looks like original research -- and right now, lots of content hereis clearly original research and spam. I don't see how this article can be salvageable given the nature of the subject. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 22:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - appears to be a legitimate term judging by the Google en Google News results but this article doesn't provide any references whatsoever, so it completely fails WP:V. It either needs some references or be deleted. Jayden54 22:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral: It appears that there is something there, even if it is Fully Buzzword compliant. Argyriou (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Question The text is primarily from this site, and is licensed Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 License. Is that license compatible with the GFDL? Does copying text bodily out of a CCASA-licensed document violate WP:COPY? Argyriou (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've asked this question on Wikipedia talk:Copyright FAQ as I cant see a clear statement about text (images and other media are not an issue because they have their own page that can be a holder for links to original source and the license). John Vandenberg 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: There is a link to a Wikibook as the sole reference, but that Wikibook does have a lot of apparently real references, even if it also has a ref back to this article. (What does WP:RS say about circular references?) Argyriou (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I dont think that the references in a wikibook can be used as sources for a wikipedia article, as there is no way to quickly check the facts in the article as can be done with . I've copied a few other the more useful/pertinent sources from the wikibook to the article, but the article should be sprinkled with  as part of the cleanup that is needed. John Vandenberg 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. The topic is notable, having been the subject of books and 5000+ hits on google scholarly, many in the title of the article. John Vandenberg 02:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The problem with an article like this is that there's a possiblity that the article represents one particular POV, while those gs-hits are about all sorts of different topics. It's possible that all the gs-hits are talking about something similar to what this article talks about, too, which is why I won't vote delete. Hopefully someone who knows something about the sbuject will give this article a thorough going-over, or at least comment here. Argyriou (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but add references. --Duke of Duchess Street 02:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but add references and a 'cleanup' tag. Yuser31415 19:45, 3 January 2007 (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.