Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of free and publicly available university video courses


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

List of free and publicly available university video courses

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Wikipedia is not a catalogue, so this compilation of material doesn’t belong here unfortunately. Mccapra (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Lists. Mccapra (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOTDIR as well as WP:NOTLINKFARM and WP:LISTN (none of these free courses are notable). Ajf773 (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, not a notable list. Di (they-them) (talk) 05:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is here to learn from. Listing the free courses online from major universities, is something Wikipedia should have.  Ignore all rules applies here.   D r e a m Focus  06:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete This is just a link farm, and blatant violation of WP:NOTDIR --TheInsatiableOne (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete and note attempted canvassing by the sole keep voter. Fram (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Well intentioned, but ultimately it is just a list of courses that are not independently notable. Also comes across as a link farm, as others have said.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Move it to another namespace I agree that it shouldn't be an article. I don't agree that it should be deleted. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How about just archive it?  Frzzl  talk  · contribs   09:02, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NOT. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete if you’re still making Appeals to Jimbo in 2023 you probably subconsciously know your topic isn’t remotely notable. Dronebogus (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Also delete because Wikipedia WP:NOT a link farm, which this obviously is. Dream Focus is the only keep voter who actually made a legitimate argument- namely that (per IAR) it’s educational so it should stay, even though it’s hardly encyclopedic. The other keep votes are asserting it is encyclopedic while refusing to provide evidence or complaining that WP:NOT and Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, basically the scripture of AfD, exist. Dronebogus (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - a simple search for lists of free course videos show a lot of sources such that NLIST seems pretty well satisfied. On mobile now but will come back to this later (didn't want the backlash to jimboposting to result in a snow close, especially since several of the votes don't even address the actual topic). It's just a matter of finding the right inclusion criteria. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * One of the primary issues is one of link farming, which this list seems to fall foul of. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. WP:LINKFARM doesn't say "you can't include external links". It's about a "mere collection" of external links. This is not that. Does that mean I think we should retain everything? No, not necessarily, but we do have plenty of lists that include external links -- the requirement is just that they be an "encyclopedic list" (meet WP:NLIST, etc.). If it can be fixed by editing, it's not an AfD issue. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this now. There's clearly no shortage of sources about free online university courses, and clearly no shortage of sources which treat them as a group. WP:NLIST is satisfied. The relevant questions are (a) figuring out inclusion criteria, (b) figuring out the right presentation, (c) whether it needs retitling, and (d) how this fits with list of MOOC providers. If NLIST is satisfied and a bunch of notable professors at accredited universities decide to give away their course content and record their lectures apart from a MOOC platform, it does not strike me as problematic (quite the contrary) to include them in a complementary list. But it's more a question for the talk page than AfD. Speaking of which, I noticed the talk page is completely empty. That's usually a first stop to resolve issues like excessive linking. Meh. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * "Clearly"? Based on what, the sources provided in the article and in this AfD? I don't think so... Fram (talk) 16:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Notability is about whether the sources exist. Nobody should be making a claim about notability based just on sourcing in the article and in this AfD. So yes, clearly, as based on even the most cursory effort. Are you really going to say that in your search to confirm the sources don't exist that you didn't find a whole lot of sources about free online courses and listing a bunch of free online courses? Does anyone really doubt such sources exist? It seems like most people are calling this a WP:NOT issue rather than a WP:NLIST issue, after all, and in that case the other part of what I said applies: the topic is solid, and the rest is fixable through editing. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Any reason why you can't then support your claims with the results of these "most cursory effort"s, instead of simply claiming that they "clearly" exist? Fram (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A claim that something isn't notable means sources don't exist. Any reason why you can't then support your claim with the results of your own searches? If we're being real, though, I'm just working on other things and don't feel like taking a half hour out of my day to performatively show you that -- shock -- people have written "free online courses" before simply because you can't be bothered to do so. I'll save that for the niche topics where coverage is actually controversial. If people looked at the amount of coverage for free online courses and decided to !vote delete based on that coverage, I can't see where my linking to a few sources is going to change much. Again, my presumption is that most people aren't going to be !voting delete based on NLIST. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In practice the burden of proof lies on the keep voter because lack of notability is presumed until proven othetwise. Dronebogus (talk) 18:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dream Focus and Rhododendrites. Sandizer  (talk) 18:27, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. There are probably tens of thousands of such courses in the world, especially post pandemic. It's also a very US centric and English speaking world biased list. LibStar (talk) 05:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, it is English Wikipedia… Dronebogus (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I could puke up a bunch of alphabet soup about WP:NOT and WP:LISTN (note that they do not say "every article that has this stuff in it must immediately be deleted"). What it essentially comes down to is whether Wikipedia exists as a resource for its readers to, yes, use. This page looks like ass, which means it is not useful as an encyclopedia article. It should be fixed, either by being split, having the course descriptions trimmed greatly, or by being taken out of a table and into a list. But when that is said and done, if it is indeed the case that we have a bunch of rules that say we should delete reliably sourced content on an obviously notable encyclopedic subject (I don't think we do, but let's say arguendo that we did), then fooey to the rules, and we should establish new ones. jp×g 09:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do keep voters keep baselessly insisting this is “obviously” notable and treating WP:USEFUL as if it’s a guideline for keeping? Dronebogus (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Your !vote literally did not address anything about this article, but you're badgering others? This low-effort non-contribution plus sniping/griefing seems to be a pattern. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * My vote wasn’t very good, yes, but neither is “it’s just notable, you know it is, trust me on this, if you don’t believe me go on Google and slog through dozens of potential sources”. Dronebogus (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ve since added an addendum. Dronebogus (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Overall, useful as a resource, and reasonable content for an encyclopedia. Improvement would be desirable to make less US-centric. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's essentially ITSUSEFUL, which, if anything, is a reason to not keep. TheInsatiableOne (talk) 10:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL. Wikipedia isn't an academic enrolment guide. Ajf773 (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2023 (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.