Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOOEC

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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOOEC

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

I declined a speedy on this for blatant spam, but nonetheless don't think it's an appropriate article subject. While the list of references superficially looks impressive, upon reviewing them, I can't find a single one that even mentions the subject "MOOEC", let alone covers it in sufficient depth to allow for an article. The article appears to be based mainly, if not entirely, on original research, and given that a search for secondary sources specifically covering this subject comes up empty, there's no way to fix that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the article is about MOOCs rather than about this particular course. Most of the references in the article predate the existence of MOOEC, and the only ref that actually is about the article subject is the MOOEC website. Since the article has existed since January 2014 and there is still no coverage in secondary sources, it simply doesn't seem to be notable. --bonadea contributions talk 14:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 16:30, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My take agrees with Bonadea -- the article is about MOOCs because there is not enough to create an article about this MOOC fork. The article reads like an essay about MOOCs, and is greatly padded beyond the presumed topic of MOOEC. LaMona (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any real references for MOOEC. Fails GNG. CerealKillerYum (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2015 (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.