Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenLRN – Open Learning Resources Network

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. postdlf (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLRN – Open Learning Resources Network

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

Non-notable organization. Seems to be an Indian educational website that shut down a while ago. I can't find any reliable sources through web searches, but that may be because I'm in the U.S. and this is an Indian website. None of the sources that are included in the article even mention the subject, except for maybe a reference to the website itself, which is dead. The organization has a WordPress blog, which last activity was in April 2009. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 04:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article uses the term "our hope" which indicates a primary relationship. It is also essentially anticipative, talking of a future proof-of-concept, and its references are non-specific (Wikipedia even figuring large) - all of which is hardly indicative of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject is non-notable and the article is promotional. Fails WP:ORG. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2013 (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.