Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education 3.0


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Education 3.0

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Describes three unrelated coinages of "Education 3.0", a non-notable neologism. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 07:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 04:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   13:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk   14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Article was fairly crufty, essay-ish, with hard-to-check references and original research using primary sources, but article here was upgraded to [File:Birger Kollmeier Oldenburg.jpg here] as per WP:HEYMANN and problems have been hopefully fixed. Notable term, if a bit vague, generating much buzz in the educational world. QED keep.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - a news search turned up some pretty good references to the term being used in quite a few quarters (articles in Forbes (there are more than this), Technically Philly, several in Wired including this one, there are a few others).  Onel 5969  TT me 16:26, 21 August 2015 (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.