Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Online University

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. CDC (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free Online University

According to the article, the "Free Online University was founded on the 17th of May, 2005". I don't think it really needed an article the day after. Come back when the university is at least marginally notable. Rl 16:52, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Prank boast. It's like those articles on "famous" bands that were formed in May of 2005. Just childishness that verges on vandalism. A typo in the article explains it best: "Histoy." Geogre 17:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ---Scimitar
• keep just because something is new doesn't mean it isn't real. it's quite a leap of logic to call such a posting "vandalism".... aimlessly lashing out at people is the real indication of childishness. j0n 21:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You don't say? So, it can be described because it exists only at the moment of speaking. It has no stability, nothing which can be referred to, since it is existing only in the form of a potentiality? Seems pretty unverifiable to me. List of students? List of teachers? List of classes? All to come whenever, someday, maybe? It isn't real, except as an announcement, and announcements are not appropriate content. Geogre 01:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • try reading the [deletion guidelines ] again. there's nothing on this article that violates any of the listed standards. you need to find something better to do with your time than trolling around and trying to find fault with others. maybe take up knitting or something j0n 02:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the advice. I think I've already found it, though: verifiable. You see, when something exists for a day, it isn't really stable enough to be discussed. The purpose of encyclopedias is contextualizing of information, not announcing neato things. Oh, and advertising. That's another deletion guideline violation. Perhaps, though, you would be better served by establishing these items than trying to insult me: it's easier. Geogre 10:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Not real? The users on this talk page are having a class right now. It's just a bit of an experiment however and i won't be awarding any credits for it. Aghost 02:17, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• the free online university was founded when the wikipedia entry was published, it is designed to mirror a similar philosophy to that of the wikipedia, so it seems like a logical place to start. aghost 20:17, 18 may 2005 (UTC)
  • I wish you well, but the deletion guidelines prohibit advertising. Geogre 01:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Aside from "wishing me well" perhaps you could look into improving the university rather than deleting it. Aghost 02:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • This is Votes for Deletion. This is not a rallying point for anything at all. We ask only one question: Does this article violate the deletion guidelines. The answer is yes. That's why I can wish you, the person, well, and vote still to delete the article. Geogre 10:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unless there's some sort of verifiability. There's nary a link. --BaronLarf 20:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, cool idea, but come back when it's notable. - Etacar11 21:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't seem any less notable than any of the other plethora of articles about schools, lists of countries that have McDonald's, micronations, et al that are kept. Keep. RickK 22:26, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • RickK? I had to double check that you weren't being impersonated. Blurb-o-matic entries on schools and bands and micronations and conlangs shouldn't be kept, and neither should this. Geogre 01:21, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • RickK, is that really a good faith vote? EvilPhoenix 04:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • This vote from you, RickK, of all people, reminds me of WP:POINT. Rl 07:24, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• D Ad and just a figment Fawcett5 02:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If this article is considered an Ad, why exactly is harvard not considered an Ad as well, along with any wikipedia for that matter? Aghost 02:30, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Not verifiable. If the creators and proponents of this page would be so kind as to provide some verifiable information, then we can keep the article. Without such references, this article could be just the imaginations of one person. --Durin 02:39, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We are not "having a class right now". We are a community trying to write an encyclopedia. That is our only goal. This "article" violates several principles, the most obvious being Wikipedia:verifable. Rossami (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

the class i mentioned is in this talk page, or it isnt depending on your pov, however, the article is just the reference material. The talk pages are not necessarily part of the encycleopedia that we are writing. Aghost 03:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for starting projects. Isomorphic 03:27, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I have written in the past that tertiary institutions are deemed to be encyclopedic. However, this appears to have no recognition for its "degrees" and no method of verifying its staff. Indeed, this is far less notable than secondary schools which are verifiable. Capitalistroadster 03:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with those who also say delete. EvilPhoenix 04:11, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
• keep: the university does not violate any of the wikipedia parameters listed in the deletion guidelines. furthermore i see the logic in officially founding this on wikipedia. given the beautiful philosophy in a free online university it would have been hypocritical to come into written existence any other way. please, how is anything interesting or utopic to come of the internet if we can not make individual evaluations as to whether older made systems should be implemented, like demanding physical information, or whether this is a good idea and so i will trust the creators verification of its existence because if it is it is and feeling that one has proof enough to claim it is not and should therefore be deleted is being far more bold than a creator. --1bit 11:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Vote above is first edit by this user. Rl 11:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• yes please disregard the comment. i forbid anyone to read or think about it for that truly was my first edit. obviously my ideas can only be inexperienced and incorrect. --1bit 21:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• No, that's not the point. The reality is that it is frequently the case that some contributors to Wikipedia fight against deletions of their articles by creating sock puppets. A first time poster making his very first contribution in a vote for deletion is unusual. The tendency is to believe such an account is a sock puppet. Perhaps that is in error, but it is not surprising that people would conclude that. --Durin 01:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This falls under vanity and advertising, and is also unverifiable. One cannot maintain an encyclopedia based on the word of an anonymous internet user. Mackensen (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fascinating, but this sort of project usually has the lifespan of a gnat... it could die tomorrow. A year from now, however, we'd be having a whole different discussion! Master Thief Garrett^Talk 03:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Aghost has created Everything records, according to the revision history complete with a speedy delete to go with it ("{{db|page is only related to the [[aghost]] page, which is a likely candidate for deletion}}", which wouldn't be a reason for speedy deletion anyway). According to the article, that record label was founded on May 20, 2005 (today). He added links to said article from Khonnor, Wwcarpen, and Aghost. It gets increasingly hard to assume good faith under these circumstances. Rl 17:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

as far as i know, the speedy deletion tag was added by a wikipedia script, i just made a stub. i dont have any intentions of abusing wikipedia's features. Aghost 17:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The edit I wrote after getting feedback on the talk page conflicted with yours, so I will just add here that I am now really curious to learn about this feature that tags articles for speedy deletion solely based on the articles they link to. Anyone? Rl 17:45, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unverifiable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Gamaliel 01:38, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Vaporize, delete. -- Hoary 04:06, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
• Delete. This looks like using Wikipedia to achieve personal goals... Sarg 13:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and ban the author for vandalism. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• Attempt to host a project on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. And Wikiversity already exists at Wikibooks. Delete. Uncle G 15:07, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

under that heading of the article you linked to, it says wikipedia is neither a homepage or file storage space. this article is clearly an encyclopedia article. Aghost 20:47, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

• Quoting from that; "You may not host your own website". In the article we're discussing here, you state that the Free Online University was founded on Wikipedia. Seems pretty clear to me that this article violates the referenced clause of "What Wikipedia is Not". --Durin 14:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• i'm sorry but i feel that founding it by posting an encyclopedic article on the wikipedia does not imply that i am hosting it on the wikipedia. Aghost 15:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

• It is hosted here. That is clear. You founded it here. You claim to have created the freeonlineuniversity.org web but while that domain name is taken, there is no serving host. Thus, at this moment in time, you are hosting the project on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Sorry. Even if this 'university' passed such a test (which it doesn't), then the article still fails on a number of points including notability and verifiability, both of which it clearly and utterly fails, your arguments not withstanding. Regardless of my opinion or yours, this article is currently being voted to be deleted, and it is highly unlikely it will pass muster. --Durin 17:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• I note that there is a serving host for the domain name now (side note: the page is badly formatted HTML). On the single page on that site it says, "Accepting teachers in the Fall, 2005.". So, this 'university' has no teachers (other than you?). We have a multitude of high schools and primary schools that are not on Wikipedia because of a lack of notability, and they have teachers, in fact lots of them. Also the Wikipedia entry here for this 'university' has considerably more information than the domain name site. It certainly still appears like this project is being hosted on Wikipedia. --Durin 21:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• I think you can safely stop beating the horse now. It's dead, Jim. Rl 21:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

well said rl, to be honest im sick of looking at this vfd page. i think we've had a nice chat. see you all in the future. Aghost 22:26, 26 May 2005 (UTC) 22:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.