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 keep but severely chop. There seems to be a general consensus that this article is deeply, deeply flawed, to the point where there are no previous revisions we can simply revert to fix the problem. While AFD is not for cleanup there are sometimes cases where an article is so bad that is preferable to just remove it altogether and start over than to try and fix the existing one, so I do not consider this a misuse of AFD and the rationale for a speedy keep is explicitly rejected. However, there is no consensus that I can see as to whether there should be an article at all on this subject, so the article is being reduced to a stub, and I will note on the talk page that simply reverting to an earlier version of the article is contrary to the consensus established here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blended learning[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not a typical request for 'deletion' discussion. Over the years this article has evolved from its original cast into an opinion piece, promotion for an educational theory, and a vehicle for inline spam links. Concerns have been voiced on its talk page. I came to this article from one of its many backlinks and began to remove some of the promotional bold text, but as many subsequent editors have contributed to what it now is, I finally decided to bring it here for a community review. My recommendation would be to revert it to the last edit by its creator and to ensure that all 'references' are reliable and verifiable, and if not, delete it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. I'm afraid I have to go for a reluctant, but quite definite, delete. To a large extent I agree with Kudpung. However, looking at last edit by its creator, I'm afraid that what I see is very much of a personal essay, full of totally unsourced content, much of which looks like the kind of personal opinion that on Wikipedia is politely called original "research". In fact, it seems to me that in some ways it is even less suitable than the current version, and I don't see Kudpung's suggestion of going back to that version as viable. I thought perhaps there would be a later version that would be worth saving, so out of the 439 edits to the page I looked at every version at six monthly intervals throughout its eight and a half year history, and also at a few other versions in between. Unfortunately, I found that every version I looked at suffered from similar problems, and most versions were even worse than the original author's version, being to an even greater extent opinion pieces, even less objective and encyclopaedic. Some versions also appeared to contain copyright infringing content. The previous AfD closed as "keep", but I think it is fair to say that the general tone of much of the discussion was not so much "this article is fine as it is", more " this topic is probably notable, so the article could probably be cleaned up". However, after a few months short of six years, that clean-up has not taken place. On the face of it, the article appears to have plenty of references. However, looking at those of the references that are available online, I see a lot of things which have little relevance to the content of the article, a couple of dead links, at least one press release, etc etc, quite apart from the fact that substantial parts of the article are not referenced at all. At least some of the "references" look as though they are more in the nature of refspam than sources for the article's content. In any case, even if everything in the article could be reliably sourced, the general character of the article is unsuitable, containing a large proportion of opinion, promotion of particular views, and chatty content (e.g. "For example, consider a traditional class meeting schedule. Say that the course would normally meet Monday-Wednesday-Friday..."). From what Kudpung wrote above, his initial thought was to clean it up. That was my initial thought too, but the more I have looked into it, the less straightforward that has seemed. It would probably be possible to write a good article on this topic, but neither the present version nor any of the couple of dozens other versions I have looked at seems like a useful starting point. The article has, from its original creation, always been a vehicle for various editors to promote their own opinions, and in some cases to post spam links too. Amongst the 439 edits there is some usable content, but unfortunately it is so lost amongst the chaff that it would really be better to scrap it and start again from scratch. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup and so it is quite improper to bring articles here just to have them spruced up. You simply have to click on the search link above to see that there are numerous books devoted to this topic such as Blended Learning: How to Integrate Online and Traditional Learning; The Blended Learning Book: Best Practices, Proven Methodologies; Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. If the nominator wants a community review then he should start an RfC or GA review. If he wants the article rewritten then he should do it himself per ((sofixit)). And, to hammer this point home, note that 99% of our articles have yet to pass a GA review. That's about 4 million articles and there's really no point in bringing any of them to AFD as we get few comments as it is and an increase in workload would just cause the process to collapse. Though, thinking about it, a complete collapse might be the best result as the quality of discussion and effort here is now so feeble that we should try a better process such as Pure Wiki Deletion. Warden (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 'not an article'. It seems to be some sort of 'opinion piece/instruction manual for teachers' hybrid. What the hell is a phrase like "One more strategic advantage is that blending traditional f2f learning with Online Distance Learning provides the learner with a real chance to experience independent learning, moreover, Blended Learning is a sure step towards Life Long Learners, and Life Long Meaning Making...", for example, doing in Wikipedia? Where it isn't gobbledygook or vague puffery it is jargon. If there is an encyclopaedic topic entitled 'blended learning' out there, it sure as hell isn't evident in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I easily found two news articles explaining what blender learning was. [1] [2] There is no doubt this is a real thing, and notable enough to get coverage. Dream Focus 00:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If 'Blended learning' is an academic subject (and what other sort of subject could it be?), shouldn't we be citing academic sources about it, rather than just local newspaper stories? You might even find some such academic sources in the references for the existing article - though it is hard to tell whether they are any use. The point is that this isn't being proposed for deletion because 'the article lacks evidence for the notability of the subject' - it is being proposed for deletion because 'it isn't an encyclopaedic article, so we can't really tell whether the subject is notable or not'. Even a stub that did little more than cite a few decent sources, and explained clearly how 'blended learning' differs from other learning/teaching methods would be better than what we have - and indeed might stand a better chance of surviving this AfD. So here's a challenge for the ARS - don't 'rescue' an article, write one... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly notable by Wikipedia standards since it passes the General Notability Guidelines, as I have easily proven. If you want it rewritten, then you have to do it yourself. Dream Focus 02:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has never been the sole criteria for Wikipedia content. It is necessary, but not in itself sufficient - and in any case all you've done is proved that a couple of local papers mention something or other called 'blended learning', without actually telling us what it is. Can you tell us what the subject of an article on 'blended learning' would be? AndyTheGrump (talk)

Both explain what it is. The first one says "blended learning, which delivers course material in class and online" and the second says "synthesis of home and classroom work" and explains they gave the students laptops so they could learn at school or at home with the internet helping them talk to the teaching staff. And notability is established by meeting the requirements for an article, not based on whether you personally like it or not. The WP:GNG has been met. Dream Focus 09:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Some stuff in the middle of the article probably needs to be pruned and the whole thing should probably be more concise, but there are some secondary sources, e.g. in the criticism section. This article is likely to be mostly fluff by the nature of the topic (see criticism), but we can cover things that have lots of meanings, see biopolitics for example. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, it always amuses me that our readers would rate highly almost any page, no matter how crap it is. It's however pointless to bring such "meh" articles to AfD. Before After. Complaints/comments on talk page since the rewrite: none. (Before there were plenty.) Tijfo098 (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has appeared before the current version, although I can't recall the article title, and was basically WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. It's time to WP:BLOWITUP. Wikipedia is not designed as a WP:SOAP for the latest trend, and unless completely rewritten, it is not encyclopedic. GregJackP Boomer! 05:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of a third-party encyclopedic treatment, see the Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Rewriting to this standard is a matter of ordinary editing not deletion. If we were to delete the current version and its edit history, then the topic would soon be back as it is quite notable. What should happen when we get a stubbier version next time? We delete that too? Salt the article name? How exactly do you propose that we make progress with this notable topic? Warden (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for demonstrating clearly what the problem is: as that short (2 page) encyclopaedia entry illustrates, there are multiple meanings of the term 'blended learning'. From what I can see from the encyclopaedia, one "combines face-to-face with technology-based learning and instruction", while another "is the combination of tools, applications and media in a computer-based or web-based learning environment. Here, the traditional face-to-face learning and instruction is disregarded...". Yet another "definition is the combination of pedagogical approaches or learning theories". I think the key word there is 'definition'. The encyclopaedia article is suggesting that there is no agreed definition of what 'blended learning' is. Does it involve face-to-face teaching? Is it a method of teaching at all, or a combination of "learning theories" that seems to have no stated connection with technology at all? If the term has multiple meanings, and no agreed definition, what is are article supposed to be about? Everything that has ever been called 'blended learning'? Learning (teaching, surely?) that combines 'pedagogical approaches'? Technology-based learning that includes face-to-face teaching? Technology-based learning that doesn't include face-to-face teaching? I suspect that what we are actually dealing with here is buzz-words, rather than anything in of itself unique. Buzz-words may belong in dictionaries, but do they belong on Wikipedia? And incidentally, before someone raises the obvious objection - that another encyclopaedia thinks it is a fit subject for an article, Colonel Warden should know by now that we don't use encyclopaedias that cite Wikipedia as a source. Find an academic secondary source (not a useless tertiary one) that explains clearly what the subject of an article on 'blended learning' might be, and we'd be getting somewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedic article given as an example above lists its sources and I don't notice Wikipedia among them. They are works such as the Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology which seem quite acceptable for our purpose. Warden (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the time it took you to write that here, you could have stubbed the article with that info. That source also says "The most accepted definition of blended learning is ..." so it's not as hopeless as you present it. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you're talking to but this discussion is certainly a good example of WP:LIGHTBULB and WP:NOTFORUM. Warden (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a reply to AndyTheGrump's long post. Tijfo098 (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, stub down and rebuild. However much rubbish the article is attracting, this is a well recognised concept in education. What it means is "distance education combined with face-to-face education". Note, for starters, "International Blended Learning Conference 2012. The University of Hertfordshire’s Learning and Teaching Institute in partnership with JISC are delighted to announce: The Seventh International Blended Learning Conference. "Reflecting on our achievements - What's next for technology-enhanced learning and teaching?" If the term meant nothing at all, the "in partnership with JISC" wouldn't be there. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article on E-learning. How is 'blended learning' not the same thing with a different title? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:46, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because we need a term for courses that mix e-learning and face-to-face. Think Open University. Look, I'm not particularly a fan of it, and some people have a vested interest in dressing up their proprietary packages as breakthrough innovations. But it's around and will stay for a while. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Has ARS resulted to stealth canvassing where they now don't even notify people that a discussion has been listed? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I highly object to this accusation of "stealth canvassing" and demand that you retract it, IRWolfie-. The fact that the tag occasionally may get missed is not a conspiracy. The Rescue list is not hidden nor intended to be. Now that you're here, however, please note that blended learning is clearly a notable subject, but the article needs major improvement. Please join us by devoting a few hours' work to its improvement. Cheers!--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is perfectly well-sourced. Yes, it needs a lot of work, but not so much that it requires blowing up. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 8 October 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.