Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Online lab model of 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Online lab model of learning

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

Speedied as advetising (by somebody else) but speedy declined. Nevertheless I believe that this is essentially a promotional article; it reads like something in a brochure. I also doubt whether it is a widely used term which has a coherently defined meaning.TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Keep - I question the sources for this article and it has the feel of someone's project but I can't find outright failings of the article. There may be other article that touch similarly on the subject like E-learning (theory) but don't see exactly how it fits together... - Pmedema (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly lacks any reliable or in depth coverage, and is likely a WP:NEO. Many of the citations, coming from unreliable sources, don't even mention the topic. There's also huge WP:OR problems. This definitely should be deleted. FuriouslySerene (talk) 18:00, 28 October 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.