Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MLearn

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 compelling, policy-backed arguments for this article's inclusion have been made. Notability has not been established. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MLearn

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

Article has one independent reference, however, this is on mobile learning, the subject of these meetings, not about the conferences themselves. No other independent sources, no indication of notability. Until recently, this was a redirect to the article on the organizing "International Association for Mobile Learning", but that article has been deleted after an (unrelated) PROD. Unless significant sources crop up: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 08:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, where it is mentioned. I was unable to find RS and the conference doesn't seem to be indexed in selective databases, so it seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:NJournals thresholds for notability. Selected papers from the conference are published in the International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning, however and the conference is mentioned there. The journal itself appears to be indexed in the ACM Digital Library, INSPEC, and SCOPUS, so seems notable. This is a plausible search term, hence a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The members of the International Association for Mobile Learning are actively working to improve this page.dparsonsnz —Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mLearn conference is an event independent from the International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning and should not be directed there. I tried to improve the text with a stronger focus on the actual event rather than mobile learning and the references. Anything else missing? Phish108 (talk) 17:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. From what I can gather (not being willing to pay the access fee) the one source uses the papers from three years of the conference to analyze trends on mobile learning, and in the introductory material describes the conference itself. So it seems to be a good source (if paywalled) but I don't think that a single source of this nature is quite enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a little note that this survey is published in the official journal of the society that organizes this conference. --Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's not significant independent sources. a13ean (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: I agree that the page should not include references to the concepts but only information about the event itself. I try adding references to the event, so please define significant independent sources, so I know what I need to bring up. --Phish108 (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the moment, the article has no significant independent sources. "Significant" means that the sources should provide an in-depth coverage of the subject, not just an in-passing mention. "Independent" means that they should, well, be independent of the meeting or its organizers. An interview with an organizer is acceptable, as long as it is published by a source that is independent of the organization and the meeting. "Source" in this context refers to what we call here reliable sources. Note that only policy-based !votes will be taken into account by the closing admin and your above "oppose deletion" is not policy-based at all. I have givne you links to the relevant policies in my answer to your post on my talk page. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 9 January 2014 (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.