Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Learning Environment

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 delete. No evidence of notability provided. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open Learning Environment[edit]

No assertion of notability (apart from a claim on the talk page that it was used by the "accredited online colleges" as part of their website). Still not clear whether this is about a product or a concept (neither is the article creator, according to the talk page).

I originally PRODded the article for these reasons, and because a Google search gave < 10 hits. PROD was removed by another editor, because apparently it was "mean" to include "Voloper" in the search terms, even though that appears to be the product's (?) creator, according to the article. For reference, another Voloper-related article has recently been deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenSites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oli Filth (talk • contribs)

Delete, strongly. An unreferenced article about non-notable, non-consumer software, laden with meaningless, essayish and promotional language: OLE tailored for corporate environments allows for business training and on-going corporate education via a dynamic collaboration environment. The phrase "open learning environment" may have applications to things other than this product. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- The term Open Learning Environment is being used to advertise a non-notable product by the Voloper Creations Inc. That is very clear now.

I am sorry Oli Filth, you were right, that article should have been PRODed.

I am the user who wrongly removed the PROD template.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate entry modeled after other legitimate entries on Wikipedia (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibco and Learn.com) and should not be deleted. The content is not in copyright violation.
- Please see Wikipedia:Other stuff existsWP: Other Stuff Exists.
  - Open Learning Environment is notable for at least three reasons: 1. Open Learning Environment should be included among the hundreds of companies listed in the Wikipedia category "Software companies", 2. It was referenced in two notable and educational texts, and 3. It was an early example of the open content movement. Mariam-t (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mariam-t is the article's author and is using Wikipedia as a free advertisement vehicle for the company Voloper Creations Inc.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am the author of the OLE article, I have used many e-learning platforms at school (York U) such as moddle, webct, balckboard, etc.. and in my opinion and other students opinions they are not very effective and user friendly. There hard to work with and have so many bugs to work out. About a year ago I started to use open learning environment and I found it to be very easy to work with. Its simple and straightforward. I think that they should get recognized for the system that they have created. It is the same for the opensites framework that the same company developed. With every single article in wikipedia its people that really like the product, services, topic, ect, and they wanted to make people aware of it. On another and personal note, I don't work for Voloper, I own my open business (hair salon) and I'm a full time student at York U. Mariam-t (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I have no idea how well-used this software is and it did seem like an advertisement. However, Mariam-t, even if the article ends up staying, I see no reason why "Open Learning Environment" should be in the software companies categories since it is an application. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an application, sorry about that, I'll remove it Mariam-t (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As an application, it fits perfectly in that cateogry of pages, and it has an inhernet utility as references for users. Article needs heavy POV cleaning and referencing some independent sources, but apart form that, is similar in scope andd atyle to thousends of other well respecet application programs. That said, I profoundly disagree with the reasons proposed by the article's author for keeping, though. Wikipedia is not a hall of fame, "they" don't deserve any "recognition" for their hard work or whatever, the article should stay ONLY because it looks to me to be a notable subject and useful resource for users. WP it's NOT a tool to "make people aware" of stuff, it should reflect the things that people are already aware of, hence the WP:NOTE requirement for articles. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already edited the parts that sound like advertisment to me, I guess becuase I am the one that wrote the article I can't see the 'POV' problems (I am assuming the POV is point of view, hopefully) so if you could point out the parts that need cleaning up I would be happy to do them. Mariam-t (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. DGG (talk) 18:31, 6 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.