Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blended Learning Rationale

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 of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blended Learning Rationale

This is clearly original research - but actually I think it's someone using WP as a host for their internal discussion. I'd suggest it is userfied, since there is no evidence it extends beyond the single (unnamed) faculty discussed. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 18:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and possibly userfy... definently original research as it's written now. *I was hoping some sources would be cited or the article would otherwise be improved, but that doesn't seem to be happening. I have left a note on the author's talk page about the problem. --W.marsh 19:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Our intent is to link this yet-to-be-finished page into the Blended Learning topic. Our thought is that somebody studying instructional methodologies might be interested in rationale and some real-life examples. Msass 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom unless citations to reputable sources outside wikipedia are provided. DES ^(talk) 19:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, can somebody point me to where there are guidelines for the timing of Wiki contributions, editing, discussions? If one has a fulltime job, it is tough to be reading content/discussions, contributing, and editing every day. Since your comment implies some timeframe for improvement of the page in question, I'm thinking that there are time guidelines and expectations somewhere that you might be able to share with me. Msass 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Information in Wikipedia has to be verifiable and thus backed by citations from reputable external sources. It must not be original research, and it should document things of demonstrable significance. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• comment Basic source info should be provedied as soon as an article is posted, at least ideally. It would be better to write offline and not post without at least basic source info.) In this case, since the article has been nomiated for deletion (a process that normally lasts 5 days) if source info in not provided before the AfD closes i would expoect the article to be delted. Of course, if rewritten with sources, it could always be reposted at a later time. DES ^(talk) 23:27, 12 December 2005 (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.