Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart 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 delete. After discounting suspiciously new or possibly interest-conflicted accounts.  Sandstein  21:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Smart Learning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm a little unsure if this falls under WP:NOT, so I am putting it at AFD for the community to weigh in on. The article reads promotional for "Smart Learning". Whether that is theoretical terminology, or an institution by that name, or a trademarked learning system, don't know. What confuses it is an internet search where it's capitalized in results titles, where all words in the results are capitalized. You can achieve the same capitalization results by searching for Teaching Students Better. There is a book "Emerging Issues in Smart Learning" published in London, but written in Hong Kong and Beijing. — Maile (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The problem right now is that, behind all the advertising, we do not even know what the article is supposed to be about. I would however lean delete. If it is this journal, it is likely not notable (I could not find it in Web of Science or Scopus). If it is a scientific topic, there does not seem to be many sources that establish it as a notable stand-alone topic (one single book is not enough). Tigraan (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Smart learning is a new instructional approach. It is evolving and there are a number of activities happening in smart learning area. Some examples include International Symposiums on Smart Learning Environments in 2012 in Canada and China, International Workshop on Smart Learning Environments in 2013 and the conference series on smart learning environments. A number of researchers are working in this area, such as Carlo Giovanella, Italy, Ronghuai Huang, China, Peter Brusilovsky, USA, Diana Andone, Romania, Kinshuk, Canada and Nian-Shing Chen, Taiwan, to name a few. In addition, there is a journal solely devoted to this area where top researchers in educational technology field, such as Marlene Scardamalia, Rob Koper, Mike Spector and others have published. A number of books are also available in this area, for example, within Springer's Lecture Notes in Educational Technology series, such as State-of-the-Art and Future Directions of Smart Learning and Smart Learning Environments. This page provides a centralized place for readers to understand various views and perspectives on smart learning. Kinshuk1 (talk) 02:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC) — Kinshuk1 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I note a similarity between your username and the name of one of authors cited. Is this a coincidence? Meters (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, per the sources provided by Kinhuk1. Hawaan12 (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As is common for educational concepts on Wikipedia, we have a plethora of identical or near-identical alternatives: smart learning, intelligent tutoring system (ITS), adaptive learning, personalized learning and, of course, personal learning environments. All of these have the same two essential components: artificial-intelligence algorithms/analysis and individually-differentiated instruction. As an example of the duplication of theme, we find that "A good account of the early work on adaptive learning and intelligent tutoring systems can be found in the classic book "Intelligent Tutoring Systems" (sic). And then there are adaptive hypermedia, adaptive educational hypermedia, computerized adaptive testing, and cognitive tutor, all very large subsets of the theme, that could probably all roll into one encyclopedic article, to the benefit of all of them. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Additional later comments: 1) There has been a spate of new editors making reasonable but slightly naive changes to this article and related topics in the last few days. I think that somebody may have assigned this as a course project, or less likely we have an actual meat puppet situation. 2) I have gone through this article and trimmed out the overgrowth. I will look at adaptive learning, intelligent tutoring system (ITS), personalized learning and personal learning environments, likely in reverse order, to see what should be merged where. I would not favor outright Deletion of what now remains here, but would favor eventual Merge (but I'm not sure which way yet) given that what remains is now reasonably referenced. Two initial steps are now underway: personal learning environment is tagged for merge to personalized learning, and adaptive educational hypermedia is tagged for merger to adaptive hypermedia. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * As FeatherPluma points out, there appears to be a strong overlap of articles here. We don't need separate articles for different terminologies. Can anyone argue against merging the appropriate articles? (No opinion at this point on what the appropriate merged title would be.) Meters (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - There have been many edits to this article since I nominated it. Between those edits and comments above, we at least have clarified what the subject matter is. However, when I read it, I still feel like I'm sitting in a conference room listening to someone pitch the product. Definitely WP:NOTPROMOTION.  And indeed, several of the unlinked sources seem to be either WP:OR or WP:PRIMARY. It's difficult to know without the links. And as noted above, one of the "Keep" editors has the same name as one of the sources. — Maile  (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - per Maile's reasoning. This sounds less like an article than a pitch - it's not clear that this is a real technology or development, that actually works and is having an impact. The article is totally un-self-aware and fails to give a critical perspective. Blythwood (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2016 (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.