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 no consensus; default to keep. - Philippe 04:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edupunk[edit]

neologisms- started in May 2008. One Acceptable referece with all others being Blogs or MySpace - No Google News hits. As one reviewer stated "...This is not a organised collection of ideas, almost everyone who talks about the subject has a different idea of what it is. Even the poster boy contradicts what Edupunk is in the talk page of the article. This appears to be a group of educators using wikipedia to launch a new website." I agree. ShoesssS ^Talk 10:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a one-month old term, it has already appeared on The Guardian and on the The Chronicle of Higher Education, and its popularity is growing fastly among educators. It's been commented upon by people notable on the education field like Stephen Downes and it has already made its way into educator blogs on other languages, with a lots of ::education blogs on spanish making echo of it like this one, russian, or this one in norwegian (I think) There are all reasons to believe that in a very near future it will have become more than notable enough for an article. (note: I have been very involved with editing this article, so my view can be a bit biased) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am an advocate of having articles that have established Notability. However, aren’t we using Crystal Ball with regards to this one. Even you state “…reasons to believe that in a very near future it will have become more than notable’’, and at that time I will whole heartily endorse. ShoesssS ^Talk 10:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'ts called extrapolation of future growth by looking at the growth it has substained until now. Also, the mission statement at meta says that we are here to, among other things, develop educational content, so we should be a bit more lenient with educational stuff. And one more item more, and that would be the last one: if the term for some reason stops growing and decays, then it's trivial to merge it into some educational article as a subsection and leave this article as a redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as a mathematical term, I am very familiar with extrapolation. And even in the definition of extrapolation it states “…constructing new data points outside a discrete set of known data points… and are subject to greater uncertainty.” And that is just my point, Crystal Ball. I believe Wikipedia guidelines on Notability are pretty well defined and sorry to say, at this point in time, Edupunk does not even closely meet the standards. With regards to leniency, if exceptions are made to policy and guidelines, why have them to begin with. Every submission can use the same claim “… it may not be Notable yet, but it may be one day.” Finally to your last point, and I am paraphrasing, if it is a neologisms, which I believe it is, “…then it's trivial to merge it into some educational article”. Why not merge it now? However, I believe you have a problem there too. What article would it fit into and be accepted by? Hope this helps explain my reasoning behind the nomination. ShoesssS ^Talk 12:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the term was made vague and then kept vague on purpose, so I have no idea of where to fit it (if I can think of somewhere then I'll mention it here). I am convinced, however, that there was a lot of discontent educators that have seen on this term a worthy flag to rally together around it and go against some perceived enemy that is causing some unspecified degradation on the educational system, and this is what is causing the term to go up so fastly. And that's what keeps it on the top of the wave, a lot of people that have been discontent for a long time and will keep being so for a long time while they fight the cause of their discontent. And that people is feeling identified with the term, and will keep it alive as long as they are discontent (heck, there was one educator comparing its rise with that of the term web 2.0, where uncontent web designers all over the internets rallied all together for this very vague term due to its thirst of new paradigms on the web design) --Enric Naval (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the National School Boards Association's blog, it appears that one of the keynote speakers on their T+L conference this October will be talking of Edupunk. Not a bad endorsement for a term that at that time was 11 days old :D I will be damned if does not indicate a lot of potential for the term. There is a difference between peering into a crystal ball and the damned term poping up accross so many online sources of the educational world in such a short time. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, above I wanted to mean that the term had been posted about by Stephen_Downes, the article defines him as "a designer and theorist in the fields of online learning and new media.". I had incorrectly linked to a red link. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This neologism has received some coverage by reliable sources[1][2],however, the coverage of it hasn't been significant enough. If all the information in the article was sourced by reliable sources, then pretty much all you would have in the article is a definition, and that would go against the first of the 5 Pillars, and WP:NOT. Also, the definition would be rather vague.--SJP (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has two reliable sources as noted by SJP, not one as Shoesss stated (the Chronicle of Higher Education and the Guardian). I would also argue that Stephen Downes should be a reliable source, even when he is publishing on his blog or newsletter rather than in a journal. According to the policy, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Perhaps I'm simply unclear on the policy, but shouldn't someone who has had a book and numerous articles published, in addition to serving as the editor for a journal in the field, be considered an "established expert"? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Stephen Downes can be considered reliable or not. Even though I've been here for well over a year, but in the past I've just fought vandalism, so I'm a newbie when it comes to anything relating to article writing. My issue here is not with the sources. I'm actually fine with the quality of the sources. They're pretty clearly reliable. The thing I have an issue with is that from the sources you can pretty much only get a definition, and the definition, I think, would be pretty vague. No matter what we do this article will always be a violation of policy. Now it is a violation of WP:OR, and if we made it so its not a violation of that policy, it would become a violation of WP:NOT.--SJP (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I warned of this discussion on the three wikiprojects listed on the talk page of the article: Wikiproject Education, Wikipedia Technology and Wikiproject Sociology. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2008 (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.