Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COMP8440 Free and Open Source Software Development Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/COMP8440_Free_and_Open_Source_Software_Development

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMP8440 Free and Open Source Software Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Contested Prod and Prod2. Not notable. GregJackP (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sign at all this is notable, despite claims to the contrary. Hairhorn (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The course is notable. It is one of the first courses in the world to successfully teach and initiate students in to open source and free software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.22.97 (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The course was first taught in 2009, so it is not even close to being the first to teach and introduce students to FOSS. The article needs references to establish WP:N --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What does "one of the first" mean exactly? Second? Tenth? Let's see some refs that say one or the other, notability needs references to back it up. And even if it were one of the first, I'm still not convinced that would make it notable. I once took an entire philosophy seminar course on split-brain phenomena, I doubt there have been more than 3 or 4 courses like this ever, but that doesn't mean it merits an encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately "It is one of the first courses in the world to successfully teach and initiate students in to open source and free software" does not relate at all to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I strongly recommend the editor who wrote that to read those guidelines and try to find evidence of satisfying them, if they want the article to be kept. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Nuujinn (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No independent sources have been provided about this course. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Independent sources have now been added Abartlet (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sign of usefulness. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is a total lack of any evidence of notability. Also, even if notability were established, the article in its present form is nothing more than a quotation from a course prospectus, and not suitable as an encyclopedia article. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not windows related, but yet meets the pokemon test so please delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.37.97 (talk) 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because this cause was not taught in the USA does not mean its notable. It appears that the english version has been developing a severe bias towards the USA recently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.37.97 (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What does the location of the course have to do with it? A course taught in the US would have problems with notability also. (GregJackP (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I must disagree if, it was a course offered by an american university and not relating to open source software it would be notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.166.22.97 (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just because it is a course does not mean it's notable.  fetchcomms☛ 21:44, 26 March 2010 (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.