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 JoshuaZ 01:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATutor[edit]

ATutor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)

Nominated for deletion based on lack of notability. User:Varezzi

Strong keep: This article topic is a core element at the intersection of Category:Virtual learning environments and Category:Free software culture and documents. It represents a critical point of reference for anyone researching the very controversial and well-known e-learning patent owned by Blackboard Inc. Proposing deletion on this article under WP:N seems entirely inappropriate, especially considering that the Wikimedia foundation itself so prominently relies on Open Source and non-restrictive modalities of knowledge distribution and learning.

If this article gets deleted under WP:N, while all the other stuff at Category:Flash games (for example) remains, it will be an absolute slap in the face to the credibility of this project. dr.ef.tymac 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The bit about WP:USEFUL doesn't seem to even apply here. Perhaps you can clarify. Additionally, your (unsubstantiated) implication of "not widely used" seems to disregard that a software title can be notable regardless of whether it is used at all.[1]
How can that be? Simple:
* It has encyclopedic and historical relevance outside the scope of its direct use;
* It features prominently in a dispute over the practices, methods, legalities and patterns of ownership in a major industry or segment of society; or
* It relates to matters that cannot be readily observed or researched by reference to an ancillary article on the same or similar subject.
All three of these apply to this article topic. (See e.g., [1], [2], [3])
The issues of Open Source software, Intellectual property, Competition in I.T. and the History of virtual learning environments all bear a strong relationship to this article topic. All of these issues are encyclopedic. None of these issues critically depend on WP:USEFUL, or how "widely used" the software package happens to be. dr.ef.tymac 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The first couple pages of results are all from the ATutor domain name, and past that you're surrounded by self-promotional literature. The Carnegie Mellon link would qualify as WP:RS and WP:V, but it's a self-submitted nomination for a grant, not an award or CM-sponsored thing. It seems the only people talking about ATutor are the people who made it. Your comparison to Napster is disingenuous. Napster was used by millions of people, sparked dozens of clones, and fundamentally altered the way music is marketed or sold or what have you. Oh yeah, and it is still used, even if the program isn't identical to the one that was developed so many years ago. The same can't be said for ATutor. Well, it could be said, but not by anyone who is a reliable source. The links you offer are great for the Blackboard article, but mention ATutor only in passing, the exact kind of trivial reference that notability guidelines warn us about. Consequentially 19:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... and people wonder why established media outlets openly ridicule the way WP:N is applied. This is a perfect example. You call my remarks "disisengenuous" ... and yet you offer: Oh yeah, and (Napster is) still used, even if the program isn't identical ... uhh yeah, right ... same name but, totally different company, totally different business model, totally different legal status, but yeah, uhh, it's "still in use" ... yeah and I guess the USA still has prohibition if you count the fact that four year olds still cannot legally buy alcohol. Yeah, right.
Even if I grant the premise that Napster-now has nothign to do with Napster-then, Napster-then still generated an exponentially greater amount of media attention than ATutor has. Napster was on TV. Napster was on radio. Napster sparked the ire of the recording industry, and was the big target they aimed at the entire time. It revolutionized music sharing. ATutor has no similar claim. The second half of your argument is an ad absurdum that bears no resemblance at all to the issue at hand.Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only people talking about ATutor are the ones who made it? Pure hogwash: Hogwash 67,500+ times over.
Did you even look at the links? The first one, Trailfire, is a search site that's trying to steal ad traffic by listing searchable phrases. The second mirrors the first, the third article (written entirely about Blackboard and their exploits) mentions ATutor once, in a list with four other programs. Next we have a statement from a university tech service that mentions ATutor once and gives no detail about the program or commentary on it. After that is a blog, then another trivial mention in a list of e-learning products, then a single mention in a multiple-choice quiz with no critical merit or inference of notability. Then a blog. Then another blog. Then another ad site. Then two more trivial mentions (one single reference to "ATutor" in a list of five programs, with no critical mention or commentary on ATutor itself), then two list-servs, then two forum posts, then two blogs. None of that is acceptable per WP:N, and like it or not, that's one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, from your quick overview of that small sampling of links you gave, you seem to be refuting your own remark that "the only people talking about ATutor are the ones who made it". Shall I assume you now recant that incorrect statement? Now, if you want to take two steps backward and assert that those blogs and whatnot are insufficient under WP:RS and WP:V, you might have a point and I might actually be inclined to agree with you. So far, all you've demonstrated is mastery of the terms "strawman" and "trivial mention". (A term I think you are grossly mis-applying, since your application makes no allowance for proportionality of the mention relative to the coverage and depth of the article itself). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:SPS. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Emphasis mine. As for the second half of your comment, ad hominem. Stop that. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Napster was revolutionary and the same can't be said for ATutor? Totally irrelevant.
Badger Badger Badger wasn't revolutionary either, nor is The Hampster Dance. You trying to tell me that WP only has articles on revolutionary software titles? If so, that's more hogwash. Moreover, it's bias toward topics that tend to appeal to young children as opposed to professors and administrators in secondary and post-secondary education. Isn't NPOV supposed to be "non negotiable"? All bets are off when we are talking about article topics in general?
This is a straw man. I never said that only revolutionary software should be covered; my argument is that articles require verifiability and notability to merit inclusion, and ATutor is severely lacking in the latter. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a straw man, then what was your point in stating the (obvious) fact that ATutor is not on the same par with Napster? What's with all the "Napster was on TV!" "Napster changed the world!". If this is a strawman, then all these points you brought up must have been irrelevant to begin with. The only reason I brought up Napster to begin with was make a very simple point (which you happen to agree with down below): that usage stats are not the only standard for software notability (since "Napster-then" as you like to call it, is now totally defunct). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoratio elenchi]. Your refutation of this is a non-issue, since it doesn't address the original question of verifiability and reliable sources. The point in the comparison is that Napster deserves an article, and ATutor does not. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as your point about Blackboard, you acknowledge that it passes your "notability" test, but the prominently cited examples of potentially-infringing software count as "trivial reference"? With all due respect, this response has zero credibility. If someone wanted to gain insight on quality of Blackboard's patent claims, where would they go for comparative research? Where would they go to find out about the validity and value of their pledge not to challenge open source projects? dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another straw man. Your "prominently cited example" is a mention in-passing, buried a few-hundred words into an article, in a list of five similar programs. The articles aren't about ATutor. They don't say anything about ATutor other than there's a program out there called ATutor, and it's kind of like Blackboard. That's the definition of a trivial reference. WP:N demands that "sources address the subject directly in detail," and these articles don't. They address Blackboard. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sure like that "straw man" retort. You just get done watching the Wizard of Oz or something? There are literally thousands of software titles comparable to BlackBoard, ATutor, and Moodle. Many of which have never seen the light of day outside local school districts. The fact that ATutor gets mentioned at all (and consistently mentioned) demonstrates notability by itself. Find me any detailed article that discusses the Blackboard patent as it relates to Open Source Software that doesn't include a mention of ATutor. dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem, again. To the second, "any mention at all" is insignificant unless it comes from a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. If fifty people are talking about ATutor on their self-published web-sites, then we have to discount those voices. Allowing self-published material as an indicator of notability means we should have articles on every band with access to server space and HTML for Dummies. To the third, negative proof. And beyond that, articles that talk about Blackboard and its patent war are justification for an article about Blackboards patent war. I've made this argument quite a few times now, and you can't seem to reply to it. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If ATutor is indeed a piece of unknown crap software, then that would be even *more* interesting because it would tend to make Blackboard's claims of restraint ring hollow and insincere. When you delete ATutor and articles like it, you're essentially depriving readers the opportunity to make that evaluation for themselves, at least through WP. You're also obliterating a piece of history in this particular dispute.
Wikipedia doesn't exist to "stick it to the man." If the software isn't notable, that's the end of it. It has nothing to do with the merits of a David/Goliath story or an evil Blackboard conspiracy. Furthermore, claiming that ATutor's inclusion in Wikipedia is necessary to advocate against Blackboard is an outright WP:NPOV violation. We don't take sides, we reflect what is notable. We're not obliterating history, either. If ATutor ends up getting talked about in enough reliable sources to garner notability, I've no problem seeing an article about it. But as it stands, ATutor isn't notable, and WP:CRYSTAL has something to say about keeping the article because it might be notable later. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about "sticking it to the man"? Who said anything about Blackboard being evil? You seem to have a little "screenplay" all thunk up in your head that bears little or no relevance to a neutral, emotionally-detached and objective weighing of *all* material that may be relevant in the well-documented and ongoing dispute regarding intellectual property. I said there's a dispute, I didn't say which side was Goliath, I didn't even say there *was* a Goliath, I said readers should have the opportunity to evaluate that for themselves Go back and read what I said. You seem to be the only one here "taking sides". I'm sure there are many interpretations of who is right in this particular dispute, I offered only one possible interpretation that showed how ATutor could be notable even when the software itself is evaluated in the light least favorable to the people who made the software. This is a point that seems completely lost on you. NPOV is concerned with representing all views clearly and impartially. (emphasis not in original). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem, again. That's three. And again, the argument gives no answer to the original notability quandry.
How much you wanna bet researchers in this area would want to get an idea of prior art? How much you wanna bet they would want to know the history behind the development of Learning Management Systems? How much you wanna bet that all those so called "trivial" mentions would be considered crucial to anyone doing serious investigation in this area?
I'm pretty sure that any serious researcher isn't going to start his investigation by thinking to himself, "I wonder what Wikipedia has to say about this." But that's beside the point. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and our job is not to establish the record for a company or a product or an idea. That's the job of those mythical third-party, reliable sources that seem to be lacking in this deletion debate. If an article or three that fulfills the requirements of WP:N and WP:V pops up that does discuss the history of LMS and clearly delineates ATutor's role in that history, then we're good. Until then, it doesn't belong here. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, you apparently downgrade WP as a potential source for serious research, that alone speaks volumes, but I'll let you clean up that implicitly disparaging remark yourself, if you choose to. And, if you are claiming that WP:RS has not been met, that's fine, but you're then changing the analysis to one of credibility of cites, and *not* notability. The latter is a recognized basis for wholesale deletion, the former is not.
Fourth ad hominem. The discussion of credibility is an important one, and Wikipedia agrees. The entire reason we abide by doctrine in WP:RS is because credibility matters. Newspapers are built on credibility, because people don't buy a newspaper that doesn't tell the truth. In the same way, Wikipedia does not allow citations from sources of questionable repute -- to include blogs and self-published sources -- because there is no evidence of credibility. We don't quote the crazy corner who shouts about mythical government conspiracies and then make an an article about said conspiracy because he's not a reliable source. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't comparing ATutor to Napster in terms of usage, I was however, making the point that the user stats for a particular software package is not the only meaningful consideration. This is a point that a serious researcher in this area would readily understand; and a point that that some here on WP seem content to totally ignore. dr.ef.tymac 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Total end-users isn't the end-all, be-all of software notability. But this is a red herring, because the argument all along is that ATutor doesn't make any claim towards notability, including a large user base. Because a large user base would invariably generate third-party content, and then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
YAY! You seem to be getting it! Total end-users isn't the end-all, be-all of software notability. That's the only reason why I mentioned Napster (what you call "Napster-then"). That was exactly my point. This is why you can dispense with the (too obvious to mention) fact that ATutor is not on TV, not in the movies, and not changing the way people think about the universe or whatever. This is *not* the "threshold for inclusion" for WP. Even if the software were totally defunct (as is the case with what you call "Napster-then") that is not a conclusive basis for deletion under WP:N. dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoratio elenchi. Your twisting of the original argument fails to address the questions raised. How is it that I'm talking about WP:RS again?


Let's cut to the chase here: reliable references[edit]

Consequentially, you've provided plenty jabs at web-links suggesting notability for ATutor. You've given me plenty of high-school-forensics-friendly buzzwords like "red herring" and "straw man". You've implied that I have a problem with WP:N (instead of just a problem with its flagrant mis-application). You've even agreed with me that "total end-users is not the end-all for establishing software notability" (which is the only reason why the Napster comparison is even relevant) ... now I'm going to give you a chance to put your money where your mouth is. You said: That's the job of those mythical third-party, reliable sources that seem to be lacking in this deletion debate.

You mean reliable sources like these?

Without context, these cites fail to address the issue of trivial mention. With the exception of the Glasgow Conference, these quotes prove only that ATutor exists. If each of these sentences appears in a book that's 500 pages long, then it doesn't do much to assert the notability of the subject. There was a similar discussion on another deletion debate. An editor argued that a mention of a band by a famous music journalist was a demonstrator of notability and thus of inclusion. When it came to light that the article was of significant length and that the mention was only one sentence in the article, the conclusion was that it was of insufficient weight to demonstrate notability. These sources, essentially, say the same thing as this article from the search results above: that ATutor exists, and is an open-source distance learning tool. Wikipedia requires more than proof of existence. It requires proof of notability. Why is ATutor an important distance learning tool? Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  ... the number of (LMS) has proliferated, and at least a hundred are currently available. ... 
  In evaluating 35 OSS systems, Farrell (2003) has rated ATutor and ILIAS as the best, with 
  Moodle close behind. 
  
  Michael Hotrum and Brian Ludwig
  Masters of Distance Education Programme 
  Athabasca University
The Hotrum quote is interesting, but misleading. This article is a "Technical Evaluation Report" , also known as software review, only its a software review by a professor, and it's not even about ATutor. From the first sentence of the review, "The ILIAS learning management system (LMS) was evaluated, following its favourable rating in an independent evaluation study of open source software (OSS) products." The professor sets up a curriculum with ILIAS, then asks a group of ten students to review it. They reach the conclusion that, "In comparing an ATutor course website with a simple HTML-based version of the same site, the ten students voted unanimously to retain the simpler site." It goes on to say, "None voted to move to the ATutor platform. This result was disappointing to the course instructor, who had hoped for student feedback justifying a move to the superior support that would be available for ATutor in the University. Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  Its developers claim that ATutor is the only fully accessible LCMS software on the market,
  allowing access to all potential learners, course developers, instructors, and administrators,   
  including those with disabilities who may be accessing the system using assistive technologies.
  Research conducted for this report did not reveal any other software with the same functionality
  for accessibility, OSS or otherwise.
  Sharon Clark
  Masters of Distance Education Programme 
  Athabasca University
  (emphasis not in original)
Another "Technical Evaluation Report," this one comparing ATutor with three other programs. The quote, which asserts only that ATutor is one of five programs that meet their criteria for value, is an assertion of quality, not of notability. The article talks mostly about its features and how to install the program -- careful if you plan on doing it with Unix, as that "requires specialized server administration skills".
  This paper describes a project started at the Technical University of Sofia Research & 
  Development Laboratory “E-Learning Technologies” and examines implementation of Learning 
  Design in Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), open source based e-learning 
  environment ATutor.
  DSpace at Open Universiteit Nederland

  Technological and pedagogical innovation has enabled the development of virtual 
  environments that bring about the possibility of learning with others at a distance. 
  The development of these virtual environments is nowadays an expanding field of research.
  (further in the article)
  3.1 The platform used
  ... using a platform built by a LCMS (Learning Content Management System) and a Groupware. 
  The collaborative learning environment was then developed from the platforms ATutor and 
  ACollab ...
  Collaborative Learning Environments for Teacher Education
  Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal
The article, "Learning Design Implementation in SCORM E-Learning Environment" is a scholarly jaunt through the world of SCORM implementation in distance-learning software, which uses ATutor as its test subject. The article is a thrilling discussion of the architecture of such a system, and how students interact with database services to acquire learning units, but again, mentions ATutor only in passing.
And so, in closing, I offer this. ATutor is one of many (dozens and dozens, according to the article) of open-source distance learning tools available to the academic world, and is the subject of research by professors at Athabasca University. These discussions, which read off the features of the program and whether or not ten students like it (they don't), amount to technical reviews and not much more. I've challenged you to provide reliable sources that demonstrate the products notability -- you have provided me with reliable sources that demonstrate its a free alternative to Blackboard that students don't like and a few professors at Athabasca do. Along the way, you've spent roughly the same amount of words (more, if you don't count quoted text) insulting me as you have arguing your case. And I'm tired. And I'm going to bed. Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


BONUS POINTS: If you can demonstrate familiarity with any key concepts in this subject area, and explain why all of these links are inadequate, and do so without introducing cliches from debating 101; or precisely define what you mean by "trivial mention" ... you will have done a lot to enhance your credibility in this discussion.

Try Google Scholar for plenty of references[edit]

To User:Consequentially (after his/her response to the references)[edit]

You've offered many assertions that seem self-contradictory, unsubstantiated or totally off-topic. I could indicate them all exhaustively, but I'd rather try to focus on the most critical points. If you still wish to dispute this, please help validate my continuing assumption that all your remarks are offered in good-faith, by responding directly to these points.

Consequentially Item1: you've ... spent ... words insulting me

Please quote the exact text where I insulted you. If you do, I will happily either: 1) recant the specific remark(s) and apologize to you, as well as take specific steps to ensure it does not happen again; or 2) explain why the remark(s) is (are) not an insult or attack against you personally in the first place. If you fail to comply with this request, I will disregard this assertion as unsubstantiated and off-topic.
"You sure like that "straw man" retort. You just get done watching the Wizard of Oz or something?",
There seems to be a sizable WP sub-population with the (very unproductive) practice of linking to articles from Category:Logical fallacies as a response to all disagreement. Admittedly, the "Wizard of Oz" comment was off-topic, but, quite frankly, the practice strikes me as very unhelpful, a tad condescending in itself, and it gets old real quick ... my attempt at humor (weak as it was) was not a personal attack, but rather a commentary on this very annoying behavioral pattern.
Nevertheless, I do apologize if this remark sounded disparaging, but this tactic strikes me as the least conducive means toward open discussion. It doesn't seem much better than someone closing their eyes and ears and repeating at the top of their voice " ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...".
Not all disagreement constitutes a logical fallacy ... sometimes people are simply operating on different assumptions. I have one request for you. Please consider that rational people can (and do) see things differently. If you already considered and agree with that point, then you may understand why the "logical fallacy link-fest" strikes some people as very unhelpful. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"You seem to have a little "screenplay" all thunk up in your head,"
Your "Sticking it to the man" and "David and Goliath" remarks sounded more like a great pitch for a movie, than a response to anything I (or anyone else) had said in this discussion. I never for once claimed there was a "David and Goliath" story or a battle between "good and evil" going on here. My point was (and still is) that someone researching the "Intellectual property" angle would want information on all the key parties, so as to make a balanced evaluation of the merits of their claims. Information relevant to those claims should not be omitted. That seems to me to be what NPOV is all about.
You apparently disagree with me, and that's fine, I can handle disagreement. However, the "David and Goliath" aspect (although fanciful and entertaining) seemed more like storytelling than discussion. In fact, I strongly disagree with the "Blackboard is evil" remarks, since they are a business and I expect them protect their investment using every lawful means available to them. The point is, my personal viewpoints (and yours) should not impede us from trying to view every article from "multiple viewpoints" so as to allow readers to formulate a "back-story" for themselves. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"So far, all you've demonstrated is mastery of the terms "strawman" and "trivial mention."
This was another response to the Category:Logical fallacies link-fest ... and also to the fact that you never defined what you consider to be "trivial mention". I still think your definition may not be entirely consistent with (what I consider to be) a direct reading of WP:N.
This indeed may have sounded disparaging, I apologize for that. Please consider, however, that discussion is a two-way street. If there is a point you feel needs to be made multiple times, or by repeated links to a WP article, you might want to consider making it a footnote, and incorporate it by reference. Also it helps if you can define your understanding of key terms, instead of just repeating the terms, that also gets a bit tiresome. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Interesting, you apparently downgrade WP as a potential source for serious research, that alone speaks volumes, but I'll let you clean up that implicitly disparaging remark yourself, if you choose to."
I suggested an option that might help "serious researchers" ... and you suggested that serious researchers don't start with WP. That may be true now, but frankly that is a response that lacks vision, and is (unfortunately) the very kind of attitude that leads to self-fulfilling prophecies.
This was not a personal attack, but rather a suggestion that I think more WP contributors should take to heart. If we (implicitly or expressly) downgrade the overall credibility of Wikipedia while simultaneously contributing to it ... then what the *bleep* are we doing here? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone throughout this discussion has been disparaging and hostile, with thinly-veiled phrases that smell strongly of poisoning the well. I refer back to arguments on notability, sources, and the interpretation of policy; you pepper your responses with condescension. Even now, as you issue your list of ultimatums, your tone is sanctimonious and dripping with ridicule. You seem to be misinterpreting the fact that I disagree with you as the fact that I'm a small-minded child who couldn't possibly understand the big scary world of rhetoric and argument. It's to the point now where I'm not going to bother checking this page again until an admin makes his final decision. For me, putting up with your petty attacks isn't worth asserting my point of view. You've done a good job of being a dick. You'll likely interpret this as me running with my tail between my legs, frightened away by your superior intellect and command of language, but in fact, I'm just tired of you. Congratulations, sir. You've exhausted my patience to the point where I'd rather leave this to the rest of AfD votes than deal with you. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You provided specific text, I thank you for that, as it gives me a chance to respond directly. May I suggest that specifics are far more productive than generalizations [Note000]. I don't know you personally, and I have no idea of your preferences or your general communication style. What I interpret as an extremely careful attempt to avoid any hint of "personal insult" you might interpret as "being aloof and sanctimonious" ... do you see the difficulty here?
Reasonable people can (and do) interpret things differently. If misunderstandings can be discussed and avoided, that seems much better than assuming one party is always trying to "defeat" someone else. Not every tale is an epic "David vs Goliath" ... even David had his time of simply tending his sheep. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item2: It seems the only people talking about ATutor are the people who made it.

Please either: 1) acknowledge that this remark has been shown to be incorrect; 2) provide reliable evidence in support of it, proving that all of the authors of the cited references are the "people who made it"; or 3) otherwise explain why this remark should still be considered relevant. If you fail to comply with this request, I will assume you concede that the remark is incorrect, and therefore not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.
You've drug this along from the very top of the thread, long after the argument has moved elsewhere. Yes, there are other articles about ATutor. But this is an irrelevant conclusion and empty victory, because it still doesn't address the core issues I've raised since the beginning. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's progress. I'm just attempting to enumerate all the issues here and check off which ones can be thrown out, and which still need to be addressed. The best way to "address core issues" is one at a time, no? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item3: self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Please either: 1) acknowledge that more than zero of the cited references surpass the level of material indicated here; or 2) otherwise explain why this remark should still be considered relevant. If you fail to comply with this request, I will assume you concede that this is not a critical issue here, and therefore not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.
Your twisting of this statement into an indictment of all your sources is evidence of the venom with which you approach this discussion. I made that argument against your original claim of "65,000 examples of notability," the majority of which were violations of WP:SPS. Now you're setting it up as a straw man. This argument still applies where I originally made it, and that's the end of it. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my remark above about avoiding generalizations [Note000]. Like I said, I'm attempting nothing more than to see which items still need to be covered, and which do not. One at a time. So far, I have Item2 and Item3 as officially resolved to our mutual satisfaction. If I am not correct, please clarify. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item4: you have provided me with reliable sources that demonstrate its a free alternative to Blackboard that students don't like and a few professors at Athabasca do.

Please explain: 1) How this does not refute your own earlier remark the "only people talking about ATutor are the people who made it" [see Item2 above]; 2) How the personal preferences of (ten) students has anything to do with WP:N, which states notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". (emphasis not in original). 3) How the opinion of "some" (ten) students justifies the conclusion: "alternative to Blackboard that students don't like". If you fail to explain, I will assume you concede that this point is not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.
Your first is an irrelevant conclusion, responded to above. Your second is a misinterpretation and misapplication of the argument, taking out of context to prevent rhetorical stasis. The personal preferences of ten students are the basis of the paper you site, and the argument is an indictment of the source, not of the article's notability. Bad sources bestow bad notability, and insignificant sources bestow no notability at all. Which I've been saying four about three rounds now. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "Bad sources bestow bad notability" ... unless I am mistaken, we both agree that WP:SPS has now been dealt with and is no longer a concern (Item3). Is there some other definition of "Bad sources" you are referring to here? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item5: (Regarding the Sharon Clark cite [4]) Another "Technical Evaluation Report," this one comparing ATutor with three other programs ... their criteria for value, is an assertion of quality, not of notability

Please explain why all of the following do not indicate notability:
Which of these is not notable? The fact that it helps disabled learners? The fact that it is the only software title in this space that is cited as meeting "their" criteria? The fact that "their" criteria are derived from ASTD, an international orgnanization with tens of thousands of active members who specialize in precisely this subject area?
If you fail to explain, I will assume you concede that your summary of the Sharon Clark cite is insufficient, and therefore inadequate basis for discrediting the cite itself, or for deleting ATutor.
Because arguing that it's a useful program is not the same as aruging its a notable program. I've got a nifty little device in my dorm room that makes ironing military creases a breeze. It's useful, and plenty of people have asked me to make one for them. But it's not notable. And that's why the indictment of the source was made. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point about the ironing device. If you had: reliable sources; published by laundry appliances experts; and your device was specifically mentioned; and your device was specifically evaluated against criteria devised by a 60 year old international standards body; and your device was the only device cited as passing all the evaluation criteria (as compared to other devices both on the market and off the market); and those criteria were the only such standards established for people with physical disabilities ... are you saying it would still not be notable? If not, can you please describe what else would be needed to make such a device notable? (remember: notability is distinct from "fame" "importance" and "popularity"). dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item6: Without context, these cites fail to address the issue of trivial mention.

You have yet to define your interpretation of "trivial mention". This is especially troubling since your summary of the citations (Clark for just one glaring example) suggests you are using a definition that is both: 1) unsupported by WP:N; and 2) based on a superficial reading of the references themselves.[6] Please either: 1) specifically define your reliance on "trivial mention"; or 2) otherwise explain why this assertion has merit under a direct reading of WP:N. If you do not comply with this request I will assume you have no clearly-specified definition for this standard, and therefore consider it solely a matter of your personal opinion.dr.ef.tymac 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In an article that explores the structure of learning software and the interaction of "learning units" with students while using ATutor as the medium for that analysis, the merit is for structures of learning software, not for ATutor. If a report is written on a new synthetic rubber that makes superior tires, and the author tested the tires on his home-made go-kart, the notability is directed towards the tires, not the home-made go-kart. I can't make it any simpler than that. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and conclusion[edit]

Here's where I think your reading of the references may be a bit off the mark, and this is a good place to summarize and conclude. Using your "go-kart" analogy, ATutor would be the synthetic rubber *not* the go-kart. If you read the references carefully, you will notice that (in more than one instance) the research is predicated on finding a flexible tool that can be adapted to meet the specific needs of different contexts, just like the "rubber" in your analogy.
For example, in one instance, the "rubber meets the road" in the context of learning environments for goal-based learning among students [2] (see specifically, pages 496 through 498 describing the use of ATutor). In another instance, the "rubber" is adapted to develop a b-learning system for professional development among teachers at the Graduate School of Education of Bragança [5]. These two examples are different categories of use and they entail entirely different research methodologies and different objectives.
Moreover, when someone uses a "new synthetic rubber" on a go-kart, or someone else uses it for a safety helmet, and they publish their results, which are they more likely to explain in exhausting detail, the rubber itself? or the performance characteristics of the go-kart, helmet, or whatever other invention they were trying to perfect? Isn't it reasonable to expect they will only mention the rubber "in passing"? Isn't it reasonable to expect that the person who uses the rubber is not going to be particularly concerned with documenting details about it, just as long as it meets their immediate need? Indeed, if *anyone* is going to go into great detail about the rubber ... wouldn't it be "the people who manufactured the rubber itself?"
My point should be pretty apparent. We've already established (per Item2) that ATutor has been mentioned in reliable sources by folks other than its original inventors. A careful reading of the references also reveals that ATutor has been used in different contexts, for different objectives. A careful reading also reveals that ATutor has been cited in reference to other related issues such as Intellectual property, open source software, accessibility for disabled users, and international standards for adaptive learning technology. A careful reading also reveals that ATutor is uniquely situated as being the only software of its kind cited for full accessibility. All of these should be more than enough to establish notability. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Problems fixed . --SmokeyJoe 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Delete. Apparently, no independent secondary sources discuss the subject with non-trivial depth. As the subject is software, the concern is that this is spam. Perhaps if someone could show that this subject is an important part of Learning Content Management System (LCMS) and needs to be split off due to article size issues, then maybe. --SmokeyJoe 06:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you please explain why the mention in the Looi cite[2] constitutes trivial depth? Also, are you saying that you've read all the references cited here, and all of the references returned by Google Scholar?
That source sounds to me like a primary source. It sounds like it is reporting facts. I’d ask to see a review of ATutor, giving commentary, saying it is good/bad/valuable/worthless. If there are reviews, then I expect to see them added to the article, with claims clearly referenced to them. A guide to using ATutor, or a summary of what it does, or a review of the class of software, is not good enough. That is primary information, which is good, but a good secondary source is needed. On the face of it, the article reads to me like a planted promotional piece, written by an advocate/author, sourced entirely from the publisher’s site. I see above that there may possibly be secondary sources. One I couldn’t get, a second I would have to pay for. I can follow your ref#5, and I find only three mentions in passing. None have been integrated into to the article. So I gave up. The article claims that “ATutor is now used around the world…” If the article provided independent verification of this claim, then I would be more impressed. --SmokeyJoe 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for clarification, can you please specify which source you mean when you say "that source sounds to me like a primary source." (e.g., the link or ISBN) so I can know we are talking about the same thing? Also, can you define what you mean by "primary information" I am assuming you mean "distributed by the developer of the software itself" (if that's exactly what you mean, no need to clarify, if not, please do). Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 15:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By primary, I meant the standard scholarly term primary source, which is in keeping with usage at WP:NOR. My problem was that, as per Consequentially, the references seemed to be only inconsequential mentions, reporting features of multiple software packages. I was also influenced by frustration with tedious arguments here, confusing referencing here, and completely inadequate referencing at the article itself. The article is now fixed. The referencing is now plenty good-enough. --SmokeyJoe 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why is it that Open Source software cited in numerous scholarly publications counts as "spam"? Isn't scholarly sources and Open Source what Wikipedia is all about? dr.ef.tymac 07:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Numerous scholarly publications would be good. Add them to the article if they belong. Wikipedia is about anything that other people have already written about. --SmokeyJoe 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Instead of adding cites and references here, I've gone ahead and some to the article directly, now the article has some inline cites whereas before this AfD started, it had zero. This should help people who wish to fairly evaluate the issues here, but are too busy to read through all the discussion. dr.ef.tymac 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^ Perhaps the best proof of this point is Napster. An article about a well-known software title that satisfies WP:N even though it is no longer used at all.
  2. ^ a b c Looi, Chee-Kit (2005). Artificial Intelligence in Education Supporting Learning Through Intelligent and Socially Informed Technology. IOS Press. ISBN 1586035304.
  3. ^ Williams, Roy (2003). 2nd European Conference on E-Learning Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, 6-7 November 2003. Academic Conferences Limited. ISBN 0954457749.
  4. ^ Amant, Kirk (2007). Handbook of Research on Open Source Software: Technological, Economic, and Social Perspectives. Idea Group Inc (IGI). ISBN 1591409993.
  5. ^ Li, Qing (2004). New Horizon In Web-based Learning. World Scientific. ISBN 9812560297.
  6. ^ For example, a footnote in WP:N shows how a biographical article on a political figure is not enough to establish notability of a jazz band WP:N#fn_1. The mention of the band is indicated as a "trivial mention". In contrast, all of the cites provided here relate directly to the subject matter of this article. The cites don't mention ATutor in the context of articles on totally different subjects (biographical articles or articles about musicians). It is directly mentioned (and even described as unique) by educators and evaluators who specialize in this area. Even in the instances where it is given a "one sentence mention" ... those articles relate ATutor directly to the subject matter of the entire article itself (i.e., Intellectual property rights, theories and methodologies in distance education, and compliance with standards for disabled learners).
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.
More