Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tufts OpenCourseWare

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. No consensus to delete the material. Mering or keeping where it is is an editorial discussion TravellingCari 19:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[]

Tufts OpenCourseWare[edit]

No sources demonstrating notability, is borderline advertisement for this service. It is not uncommon for schools to share course materials. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Keep. Sources strongly suggest notability; I don't see anything wrong with the subject. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Keep per sources mentioned. Someone might say that the informaworld link is not independent as it is written by Tufts U people, but since it is vetted by the people who accepted it for publication, that is irrelevant in my opinion. (That article survived peer during the publication process, making it reliable) - Mgm|^(talk) 22:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Merge into OpenCourseWare. It's not their program. It's MIT's. They joined in & are offering some courses under it, but it doesn't maker their participation particularly notable. The nearest analogy is Google Books. Yale participates in Google Book Search. so does Michigan. so do about 20 other places. that doesn't make for articles Yale Google Book Search, michigan Google Book Search, etc-- it just justifies a short paragraph about each of them in the main article. No matter how much they may publicize it--they each do, as much as they can, but it's still PR, not notability, for them. Just the same with their installation of Blackboard. Or for their chapter of a fraternity, or their use of worldCat, or their part in any other notable activity. DGG (talk) 02:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[]
Those are apples and oranges. The book scanning program is managed by Google; its participants include a number of institutions, but they all do the exact same thing, and are a member of the exact same program aiming for the exact same results pushing their data to the exact same location. OCW is just a term for a type of program; it doesn't "belong" to anyone, in the same way that all installations of blogging software should be mentioned as paragraphs in livejournal. The mere fact that there are other similar programs in existence doesn't exclude the notability of other programs. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[]

Keep per sources mentioned. Please clarify your problems with the page and/or the language. The material in the article is referenced. Tufts OCW exists on it's own right as an open courseware provider and offers course materials separate from MIT's OCW program. If Tufts OCW were to be deleted/merged, then wouldn't other school entries need to be as well: - Berkeley Webcast - Notre Dame OpenCourseWare - Open Yale Courses - Tufts OpenCourseWare - Stanford Engineering Everywhere 14:46, 30 October 2008

Comment: I see nothing in this article explaining why Tufts' open course ware is particularly notable. I.e., what makes it special. I strongly agree with DGG's analysis. OpenCourseWare in general is notable, but in most cases some specific school's would not be (MIT would probably be the exception, since IIRC theirs was the first.) TallNapoleon (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[]
What makes it notable is coverage in detail by reliable, secondary sources. It isn't our place to decide what is and isn't 'special'. That's a job for reliable sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 1 November 2008 (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.