Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apprendre2.0

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 delete. While the discussion strayed in many places from policy, there was a rough consensus that no evidence has been presented demonstrating notability of this topic under WP:GNG. j⚛e decker ^talk 19:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apprendre2.0

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lacks sufficient secondary sources; almost all provided sources are either dependant or not centered on the subject Koui² (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

I vote to keep this article.

Changaco (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FApprendre2.0 --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does this article match any of the reasons given in WP:DEL-REASON? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find this new delay quite unfair : all explanations and new sources have already been given in the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apprendre2.0 - And yes, unfortunatly, there is a sort of censorship based on arbitrary judgments around the case Apprendre2.0 http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Demande_de_restauration_de_page#Apprendre2.0 Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG, in spite of this deluge of sources, since they are neither "independent of the subject", nor "address the subject directly in detail". Many of the sources provided are actually dealing with Social learning (social pedagogy), not with Apprendre2.0. As a consequence, several sections - such as "Problematic aspect", or "Methods of work" - are actually Original Research. --Azurfrog (talk) 07:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not true : as it was alrealdy said an proved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apprendre2.0 some aspects of the problemmatic and the methods of Apprendrer2.0 has been studied by researchers and learning/ICT professionnals.--Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cleaned the article from many references not linked to the main topic. All the ones I removed were here to explain terms in the article, and don’t prove what the article says itself, resulting in original research. Schlum (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The user Schlum has systematically vandalized the page of apprendre2.0 in wikipedia.fr http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion:Apprendre2.0/Suppression#Supprimer : This huge damage has made impossible to discuss about the page Apprendre2.0 :-( --Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 20:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removing irrelevant references is not vandalizing… Anyone can verify than these references are not at all about Apprendre2.0 (most of them are dated 1975-2007, before Apprendre2.0 creation), and are not about what the article says (ie. Apprendre2.0 aims and fundamentals). What you are doing here is original research. Schlum (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, Everybody can see that Schlum is vandalizing the english Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apprendre2.0&action=history ...--Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You’d better stop using these irrelevant references… Nobody will be fooled by that. Schlum (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are not irrelevant because they explain the past research context...but I suppose I have nothing to discuss with a user whose basis of discussion is censorship.--Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly what "original research" means ; references are not here to explain past research context, but to show that what is said in the article is not your personal opinion about the main topic. Here, all these references are not about the main topic and cannot show anything about what is said on the sentences they are expected to reference. It’s why they are fully irrelevant. And please stop your ad hominem attacks, or I will have to report you to administrators. Schlum (talk) 05:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really, the introduction of a subjet is not supposed to present its context ? STOP VANDALISM NOW ! --Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice Be aware please that User:Sbody.swhere00 has self applied an edit protect template to the article in question, which I removed. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:GNG. It is also highly WP:OR Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this article appears to my rather inexperienced eye to be nearly G11 speedy. Gtwfan52 (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"inexperienced eye" ... Yes indeed :-)--Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 07:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are never appropriate, sir. Do not do it again. It seems to be your only rationale and it needs to stop. Do you even know what I was talking about? Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
??? I've just re-writen your own words ... have a nice day :-) --Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn’t want to interfere here as it is not my main language, but as this is a french association and I carefully looked at the citations, I can say most of this article is either original researches or referenced with the website of the association itself. Many references are irrelevant, they don’t prove what is said in the article but are here from the author words to "explain the past research context" (more clearly, these are citations about the terms used in the article, and not at all about the main topic, most of them are even older than the association). Schlum (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well...Shlum didn't want to interfere but if so, what is it then here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Apprendre2.0&action=history ... Vandalizing a page is not a way to interfere ??? I think we can't trust you. In this talk page, we are talking about a website of learning network, not about an association because it's not one.--Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It’s you that cannot be trusted, you are adding irrelevant citations in the whole article without any link with what the sentences in the article say, and mostly older than Apprendre2.0’s creation, to try to fool everyone about the existence of notable third party sources. I made a request to administrators about your constant personal attacks. Schlum (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, deleting irrelevant, "weasel sources" is actually an attempt to achieve neutrality, and certainly cannot be called vandalism. Giving the feeling that the subject matter is notable through all these citations referring to general concepts rather than to Apprendre2.0 is at best misleading. It can indeed be seen as devious, "weasel" advertising.

I suggest Sbody.swhere00 read carefully WP:OWN, since he seems to believe he owns the article somehow. --Azurfrog (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in agreement wth Gtwfan52. --Nouniquenames (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infortunatly, Gtwfan52 and Schlum are making disinformation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Cannot_clean_irrelevant_citations --Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete badly written article with a lot of flowery / NPOV language about what is fundamentally a small non-notable website / social network. As pointed out by others the references given are of little value. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost G11 speedy-worth, appears to be purely promotional. It doesn't help that the article is almost completely unreadable due to being written in jargon and badly translated from French. ("the strictly located management of the promotional space and the follow-up of the editorial baseline based on the apprenance constitute the moderation criteria" - er, what?). Black Kite (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it is written in the beginning of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apprendre2.0 , you can help me here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apprendre2.0 Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Help" would have to consist of a complete rewrite of the article. It is very promotional in nature, which is why I agreed with Gtwfan. The cleaning of irrelevant citations had nothing to do with my original deletion rational. The lack of readability also contributed, but is a lesser ill than the promotional nature and peacock words found within the article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just used the exact and right words :-( Sorry if it seems to be promotional but it was really not intentional...!--Sbody.swhere00 (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.