Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Cs of 21st century 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! 00:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four Cs of 21st century learning[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This appears to be an unremarkable, cited almost entirely by first party sources, and a single press report, which does not establish notability( it just covers some goals of the USA administration at that time, not the subject of the article) and is additionally dead. Ethanpet113 (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had considered redirecting to 21st century skills, where this is briefly mentioned; most of the references are about that concept more than this mnemonic. That article has enough problems of its own that I didn't do that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to 21st century skills per above. This article does not appear to be WP:NOTABLE as the sources provided are neither plentiful nor independent of the subject and the topic is one paradigm among many; this also results in the focus shifting to P21 rather than the four Cs. Perhaps a mention in an article with a broader scope will suffice. ComplexRational (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 07:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. A self-referenced attempt. Text that lacks the attributes needed for incluson in a Wikipedia article should not be bundled off onto other articles. -The Gnome (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2018 (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.