Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cloud learning

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud learning

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

Article is stylistically and grammatically challenged--at best it's a dictionary definition, at words it's spam for www.mycloudlearning.com or something like it. It's unverified also. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to E-learning? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the reason I suggest redirecting is because this is a fairly relevant term that is generally synonymous with E Learning. Agree that this is "Gushy Spam;" It is almost identical to MyCloud learning, which I tagged as G11. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Reads like gushy spam: a learning theory that uses advanced server technologies to enable flexibility, interactivity and creative academic resources and services; customizable technology that allows for on-demand self-service access to pooled assets and resources through rapid elasticity by way of measured service, value, and accountability; emphasis is upon the rapid distribution of information for the end user rather than the specific needs/goals of each end user. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - completely unsourced. No reliable sources I could find to establish notability. This MAY be a topic that people start talking about at some point, but apparently not yet. In addition, it's likely incorrect, which is of course a good reason to only have articles with good sourcing. Best to redirect to E-learning. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was only 32 minutes old when it was nominated for deletion. Considering it for deletion this quickly is simply WP:DEMOLISH. And I'm not just saying this out of principle. Just a quick search through Google find some scholarly sources which describe "Cloud Learning Environments" and "“in the cloud” learning"-- two different unaffiliated peer-reviewed academic sources. This is a very new concept which was introduced at the end of last year based on this article which is a statement of concept issued December 2009. I'm tagging this for rescue. —CodeHydro 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind about the second source (it's about anti-virus programs that "learn" virus definitions from the cloud), but the other two sources are definitely related. —CodeHydro 22:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spammy article fails WP:GNG. The couple of sources in the article prove that the concept exists, but none of the sources provided so far establish the notability of the subject per WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^gab 17:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has this article been given the chance of a rewrite? The article is badly written but the underlying or proposed technology is very interesting. Many software developers (including Google) think it is an interesting developement and will probably implement derivatives. Cloud learning may be a new and inovative development, if it is'nt it still deserves a well written article in Wikipedia. --JHvW (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, as per others, the sources given prove it exists but nothing more. Codf1977 (talk) 13:26, 21 September 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.