Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Otherwise

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Education Otherwise

[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)

None of the sources cited were reliable and the article seemed to be written like an advertisment (despite being for a charity.) The first paragraph is directly copied from their website, educationotherwise.org. I couldn't seem to find any reliable sources with any significant amount of information about them, so their notability is doubtful too. Aalaa324 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article leaves a lot to be desired, but this is a significantly notable organisation, with plenty of coverage in printed media. Rathfelder (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What printed media? Do you have any examples?

Cited by Government Committee (PDF)

Referenced by local authorities

The go-to organisation for articles in the press

and The BBC. etc. etc. Lame Name (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having worked to get the initial article into an, admittedly poorly, but often reliably, sourced, acceptable form it is disappointing to see it reduced to its current state. This seems to be in part due to a few minutes of edits by Imaginationeducation who's only contributions seem to have removed substantial elements of this article, including referenced content, apparently because it was "out of date". Lame Name (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

Unsigned above appears to be User:Aalaa324 Lightburst (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rathfelder makes a good case that we have RS to V this charity's notability. We have surmountable problems here. Lightburst (talk) 16:48, 27 September 2021 (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.