Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web-based new literacies


 * 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   merge to  new literacies . I'm going to be a little bold, and suggest that the proposed merge would satisfy everyone. No evidence has been presented that this is a standard term in itself. I do not think it's reasonable to multiply articles on the same concept because different words are used in the titles of different sources about them.  DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Web-based new literacies

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is a neologism and content fork of New literacies and fails WP:N as a separate topic. Per the article as it is right now "Web-based new literacies is a term coined in 2008 by Mahmoud Abdallah, assistant lecturer of Curriculum and TESOL Methodology at Assiut University College of Education, Egypt (rm gratuitous EL), while he was doing his PhD study at the Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, UK." I initially redirected the article to New literacies per this brief discussion which was created after a merge tag was placed on the article (which was removed without discussion by the creator). After the creator reverted my redirect, I asked that the creator to engage at that discussion via an edit summary. No luck. Upon further review of the article, it does not seem worth a redirect even. Novaseminary (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
 * Delete. Review of the references make it look like this is a neologism being promoted largely by a single academic.  And the text is refreshingly honest with the fact ---  In addition to being multiple, new literacies are always changing because everyday innovations come to the fore requiring certain literacies, and therefore, today’s literacies will become obsolete after sometime. This makes the concept wide and vague, and hence, if we use ‘new literacies’ without linking it to a specific reference, it might refer to all innovations and technologies. Therefore, when the Web is the main technology in focus, ‘Web-based new literacies’ would be the proper term to use.---  that this may be a non-notable neologism that describes a very unspecific subject.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This concept and phrase was obviously not invented in 2008 as it is easy to find earlier sources such as Global literacies and the World-Wide Web. The notability of the topic is thus demonstrated and the task before us is to improve the article in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The concept is covered in New literacies, Computer literacy, and Digital literacy, to name a few. How is this particular term or idea notable independent of those existing articles? I suspect the term "Web-based new literacies" appears nowhere in the book listed in the previous !vote. In fact, the phrase (using "literacy" or "literacies") comes back with zero Google scholar or Google book hits. I don't object to including whatever, if anything, from this article that may be useful in an existing article, but whatever nuance is unique to this formulation of the concept is not itself notable. Novaseminary (talk) 22:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * These essential feature of this topic is that it is web-based. The other concepts are more general and so would include other new forms of literacy such as texting, word processors, desktop publishing &c.  They are obviously inter-related but you have failed to demonstrate the slightest reason to delete any of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I would not be heartbroken if some of those other articles were deleted, but I only nominated the one for deletion. Why can't this topic be covered in the existing articles? How is this not a WP:CFORK? How does this topic meet WP:GNG or any other guideline. The book you have listed cannot be enough (and doesn't even necessarily support this being anything other than a branch of a broader topic). Novaseminary (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added another source and can easily keep adding more as there is an extensive literature. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The source you just added moves this toward being a content fork of Technological literacy, Computer literacy, and Information and media literacy. The two sources you have added never use the term used in this article. As for the "idea", the use of these sources seems to violate WP:SYNTH. I would be fine renaming this article Internet literacy or Online literacy and culling all of the non-sourced text, but that would fundamentally change what this article is about (as did your recent redefinition of the term in the article). Novaseminary (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your position seems too literal. Wikipedia neither a dictionary nor a search engine and so exact phrasing is not required when looking for sources.  The essence of the topic is novel forms of literacy which are web-based and there are many ways of expressing this in English.   Technological literacy is an even wider concept which would encompass the ability to drive or use a telephone.  Such related topics form a natural web or hierarchy which we may develop in parallel.  Deletion is not helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment So why not support my proposal to rename the article the more general "Internet literacy" or "Online literacy" and move it away from the WP:NEOLOGISM problem? Your edits are moving in that direction anyway. By expanding the definition in the lead to include "forms of literacy based upon the ... internet" you have moved the article far beyond the title which is focused exclusively on the Web. Novaseminary (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is our editing policy to pick up the ball and run with it in such cases. The issue here is your proposal to delete the article.  If you do not actually want to delete the article then please withdraw your nomination.  Further discussion of these various topics might then take place at our leisure at the relevant talk pages for those articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I still want to delete this article as it does not pass WP:N. But the article you seem intent on turning this article into is fine by me, properly named. So in an effort to reach consensus, I would change my !vote to merge/redirect if you were to create, or support the creation of, a new article Internet literacy. Then we could debate whether the existing article title is an appropriate redirect, a subject about which I do not have a strong opinion. Novaseminary (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to new literacies or digital literacy or computer literacy. PS. The subject is notable but isn't it a fork of the articles I mention? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment If this does become the consensus (and while I slightly prefer deletion, I am just fine with this), I suggest new literacies is the best redirect target. Novaseminary (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2010 (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.