Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOOC 2.0


 * 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 redirect to massive open online course. The article history is intact for the purpose of merging the material as appropriate (there wasn't much there to begin with). ~Amatulić (talk) 04:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

MOOC 2.0

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

advertising The Banner talk 01:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete & Redirect per nom - Blatant advertising!. – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  01:55, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to MOOC. I think this could have been redirected with little fanfare. There isn't much on Auh's version of this MOOC 2.0, but I didn't dig too hard. It obviously more used as jargon for the MOOCs to come (, etc.) Delete before redirect because the article is unsalvageable—where we're going, we won't need it czar ⨹   03:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Just an advertisement. &mdash; Revi 15:19, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I believe that being featured in a full-length article in two reliable sources - Chronicle of Higher Education and JoongAng Ilbo  is sufficient. Issues with tone merit tagging, but not outright deletion, if the article passes notability, as I think is the case. Reading through the article, I think it is written less like an add and more like an essay, so in fact the template that should be added is Essaylike. There are also copyvio issues (from, through the author is the same, I believe); for now I think that the best fix would be to remove most of the article's content as essay/add/copyvio, and keep the bare minimum required for a stub. Disclaimer: I am an acquaintance of the author, and he asked me to comment in this AfD.  --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * While Auh's is one use of the term, I don't see one interpretation of "MOOC 2.0" being definitive, so I still think the redirect makes sense. Anything that needs to be said about this specific usage can fit within a section on Yoonil Auh's page, as he's most associated with the concept. Furthermore, the second article is more about Auh than "MOOC 2.0" and as an interview, carries less weight than a dedicated report about the topic. After reading the Chronicle article, I couldn't tell you any specifics about what his "MOOC 2.0" is other than a vague idea. Unless this content is to be merged (in which case the article cannot be deleted, so as to preserve attribution), blowing it up and making it into a redirect appears to be the best path czar ⨹   20:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (drone)  @ 22:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Refs in article indicate that this is a notable project. Promotional tone is not a valid reason to delete. It is already tagged and can be fixed quickly in this short article. ~KvnG 02:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Promotional tone is not a valid reason to delete." is a 100% incorrect statement - There are tons of articles that pop up at AFDs that are promotional and most are deleted because of just that, Also there's promo tags on loads of articles since 2008 as seen here which obviously haven't been "fixed quickly" at all so again another incorrect statement. – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 03:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Which WP:DEL-REASON are you referring to? I don't think #4 applies here because there is encyclopedic content including evidence of notability. I have cleaned up the article a bit. I spent less time on that than I have participating in this AfD discussion. So, yes, lack of progress since 2008 not withstanding, it can be fixed quickly. ~KvnG 16:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "fixed quickly" to what? None of the four sources in the article actually explain anything in any depth. After four articles, are we any closer to understanding what this idea even is? The promotional part for me is not the tone, but that I can't do anything with these sources. czar ⨹   17:50, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Does anyone care to point out a valid reason to delete? ~KvnG 19:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * DEL-REASON states "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to" not limited to - Therefore deleting per promo is a valid reason to delete, Period. – Davey 2010' Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 19:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * By that logic WP:DONTLIKE would also be a valid reason. ~KvnG 19:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , #14: WP is not a soapbox for promotion. Nothing is known on this topic and isn't enough information (significant coverage) to write an article. Any sources that need to be expanded can be used in Auh's article without merging. (I'd entertain a merge to Auh in lieu of deleting, if anyone suggested it.) The term "MOOC 2.0" is still useful, though not in this usage. Any search will show that it is more commonly used in describing some successor to MOOCs rather than to Auh's individual vision. So "MOOC 2.0" would still make a useful redirect to "MOOC". That's the summary. czar ⨹   20:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stating a usable reason. I believe I've addressed the promotional tone in the article and would prefer to keep it. I'm not sure I believe there are inherently promotional topics. Incidentally the sources indicate that Kyung Hee MOOC 2.0 might be a better title for the article but moving or merging an article while it is being considered for deletion is not a good idea. ~KvnG 01:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Wifione  Message 18:09, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I'm seeing a reasonable amount of coverage in mid quality RS's. NickCT (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, per The Banner. Wincent77 (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Your !vote makes no sense at all as you're !voting to "Keep per The Banner" yet he's nominating for deletion ..... So unless I've gone mad care to elaborate? – Davey 2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: Then every single research project conducted at UOIT gets their own article too, like Gaming Technology Developments or Nuclear Science studies. Tibbydibby (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, no redirect &mdash; Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB, as the article is describing a service exclusively from Kyung Hee University / Kyung Hee Cyber University, not a general academic or technological concept (unlike, say "Web 2.0"). As for an article describing actual "MOOC 2.0" (e.g., like article @ http://www.wired.com/2014/09/moocs-2-0/), the concept might have merit (and should be allowed to be speedily recreated). As it stands, however, it's a weasely form of usurping the name for advertising the university's service (and if it's retained, should at the very least be moved to Kyung Hee MOOC 2.0, the proper name of the site as per WP:NC. -- slakr \ talk / 23:22, 10 January 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.