Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equal Education

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 Draftify. No consensus to keep or delete, but a strong suggestion to draftify, which should accommodate all. Randykitty (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Education

[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)

The article lacks sourcing. It was quite promotional before I axed it. An AfC draft that fell through the cracks. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 11:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found a source. –Cupper52^Discuss! 13:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide the source so it can be added to the article? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed that this article is lacking sourcing. The source provided does not meet WP:RS and doesn't show notability. Redoryxx (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I ran a quick Google search on "Equal Education" "Cape Town" -wikipedia and stopped after I reached the second page having found significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ten times: https://www.groundup.org.za/article/we-want-eastern-cape-education-department-fix-our-schools-demands-learners/ https://ewn.co.za/2020/08/06/equal-education-disappointed-by-substance-of-dbe-s-school-nutrition-scheme https://www.iol.co.za/capeargus/news/budget-cuts-will-worsen-school-overcrowding-in-western-cape-says-equal-education-43678863 https://ewn.co.za/2020/06/12/equal-education-goes-to-court-saying-dbe-backtracked-on-schools-feeding-scheme https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-17-court-order-the-department-of-basic-education-to-urgently-feed-9-million-hungry-children/ https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2020-07-17-court-order-the-department-of-basic-education-to-urgently-feed-9-million-hungry-children/ https://www.thesouthafrican.com/news/equal-education-wants-answers-from-dbe-over-school-nutrition/ https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2020-07-23-pupils-demand-solid-classrooms-after-storm-destroys-prefabs/ https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/equal-education-seeks-order-forcing-govt-to-ensure-all-qualifying-pupils-are-fed-through-scheme-20200702 https://www.groundup.org.za/article/its-fair-to-conclude-that-we-do-not-have-what-is-called-a-school-says-principal/ Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep hi i created this page initially but its been updated over the years. This is a legitimate organisation operating in South Africa. This page should not be deleted but just improved. Most of the text that was there prior to removal can be referenced (and the tone corrected) as you can see by the multiple links posted by others above. Yonibass (talk) 11:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 3 keep, 2 Delete (including nominator), close call. Relisting to get better consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (or re-draftify_ for rewriting. The verfsion that should be judged for potential is [1] , before 90% of the content had been removed as promotional -- it was promotional , but it needs shortening and rewriting, not removal.But there's no version which is really satisfactory for mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 10:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify As I agree with DGG about the current state of things. Perhaps we can get the delete voter to go with draftify also. Since it seems like a reasonable option. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the late suggesting of DRAFTIFY, relisting for a third time to see if there can be more consensus for that option or for some other outcome (delete or keep both having received support).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per DGG. The topic is notable, but the content needs some workshopping. StarM 21:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria through the sources found by Walter Görlitz. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, "Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." The article has promotional wording but it is not sufficiently promotional that it should be deleted from mainspace. The initial 13:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC) version of the article is not promotional and can be reverted to if the current version of the article is deemed to be too promotional. I prefer that the article be improved while it is in mainspace instead of being moved to draftspace where if unedited for six months, it would be deleted under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13. Abandoned Drafts and Articles for creation submissions. Cunard (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify as second choice. There are enough sources to establish notability, but the article does need work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 26 February 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.