Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EF Education First

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 no consensus. If someone wants to renominate this article in good faith with a rationale based on our inclusion guidelines then be my guest. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EF Education First

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

Nomination on behalf of User:Daysheads57, who intended to bring it here but prodded it instead. Concern is: "Company is not relevant to an encyclopedia." I declined the speedy yesterday and contested this prod as well (also added sources), but I don't want to exploit my knowledge of WP policies to prove my point. I therefore remain neutral. Pgallert (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete don't see the relevance of this company to wiki. Content is very poor. Daysheads57 (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Daysheads57 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. The sources in the article would seem to be enough for notability, but I also found coverage here and here and a mention here that confirms the subject to be one of the leading operators of student travel programmes. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The content of this article is of a low standard. It has been like that for some months now. As to the notability of this company, just because a company exists doesn't mean it should be in wiki. On a side note, the article has been used by some company insiders to try to promote their products, see the history. Luckylou222 (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Luckylou222 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment. Nobody has said that this should be "in wiki" because it exists (and, by the way, this is Wikipedia, not wiki, and you seem to have a very similar use of language to Daysheads57). The reason for inclusion is that it meets Wikipedia's guideline on notability by virtue of the fact that it has been the subject of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Behavioral issues by editors can be dealt with by blocking and/or article protection if they become disruptive, but they are not a reason for deleting an article, and nor is poor article quality, which can be addressed by the normal editing process. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you're jumping to conclusions due the term wiki, people I work with refer to Wikipedia as wiki. Do a search for wiki on google, the top three results refer to wikipedia. And I had just read and agree with the comments of Daysheads57. Luckylou222 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company with a multinational presence and coverage to match. Nuttah (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2010 (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.