Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multimedia literacy

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 to keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Multimedia literacy

DELETE. The article doubles up on information found in other articles, article should be deleted or content moved and page redirected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.96.120.254 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 26 October 2005 (UTC).

• It would help understand the criticism if you indicate where it should be placed, or where it is already covered? Travers 12:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:18, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as an incomplete mishmash of postmodernist nonsense that attempts to 'explain' a suspected neologism by reference to the methods used. Eddie.willers 11:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Well, Eddie, todays neologism (newly coined word or phrase) is sometimes tomorrow's dictionary entry. A quick search on multimedia literacy will show that it is in the title of many books and university courses. This doesn't prove that it means anything of course, but maybe it deserves a little attention, even if it is to put a critical and reasoned point of view. Travers 12:15, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep unless more evidence provided of its duplicating other articles. I despise these pseudo-academic fads, but it does appear to have at least some currency. - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR. Radiant_>|< 17:17, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep- The person who proposed the article for deletion made constructive edits to the page and then proposed it for deletion. Seems a bit strange to me. Regardless the article seems to have valuable content, as far as I understand it describes the process of combining new technologies with traditional understandings of literacy. Author should however consider better linking the article in with other literacy and education articles.Perhaps this article should be marked for cleanup rather than deletion. AdelaideRandel 02:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep artilce doesn't seem to be Original research nor a "mishmash of postmodernist nonsense".129.96.120.254 07:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep- This is not a pseudo-academic fad nor is it a mishmash of postmodernist nonsense. Anyone with a bit of investigative skills and common sense to see it for what it is would realise that the area of multimedia literacy is becoming widely reported on from many sources besides academics alone. Do an online search, the last Google search I did with exact phrase "multimedia literacy" produced 40800 hits (although I did not sit down to read them all). The Federal Government in Australia (and other countries) spends massive amounts of money researching this area annually at some level of use by the population. It has even been included into the school curriculum at the expense of millions of Australian tax payer funded dollars. Yes I agree that some areas cross over and could be linked better, but how about we give Travers a break and let him get on top of it by editing it and addressing this issue. After all the page itself has only recently been created and has so much potential. I would like to add that the IP Address for which this article has been recommended for deletion is a Flinders University IP and the author has not signed his request by having logged in. I wonder is this a student of Travers causing mischief and mayhem at his expense. This is an assumption on my behalf as the first name of Travers appears to have been used in one edit comment on the history page & a university IP address was logged at the time of this entry (see page history @ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Multimedia_literacy&action=history). The unidentified author is from an address that has been reported for vandalism to another file (solar system) see page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:129.96.120.254 to confirm. I reiterate again "STRONG KEEP", but amend/edit. Just A Girl 00:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if "Just A Girl" is a student of Travers engading in a bit of brown nosing.

Wouldn't be a Wednesday morning tutorial student being malicious by any chance IP 129.96.120.254 would you? (time seems to fit then) maybe you shouldn't swipe you student card at the door and make these attacks on a PC that you personally have logged onto, easy enough to trace, lets face it the internet is not as anonymous as you might think. Let us hope Travers lets you get away with this one, but you should be more careful in future. Don't go stuffing it up for the rest of us and get us blocked with your malicious work. 138.217.216.144 01:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think enough has been said in this little debate, could an administrator archive this page and remove the AFD, I think it may be a tad supercilious. As a side note if people wish to engage in flame wars or whatever please find a more appropriate forum. I have struckout the sections above that I would regard as inappropriate for inclusion in this section as they add nothing to the debate. AdelaideRandel 06:37, 2 November 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.