Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Dynamics


 * 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Education Dynamics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable. Sources cited are regurgitations of a press release regarding a single event (company acquisition), and a search finds nothing better, just social media accounts etc. Fails WP:GNG / WP:CORP. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Education Dynamics is a key player in for-profit higher education in the United States. I have already noted several respected sources, including the New York Times, NBC News, CBS News, The Atlantic, The Hill, NJ.com, and Inside Higher Education. The company has revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars and works with 500-900 colleges in the US, including some of the largest online providers. The company also purchased Unigo which has a Wikipedia article since 2011. --CollegeMeltdown (talk) 17:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC) Added links to Unigo, for-profit higher education in the United States, and Hoboken, New Jersey.CollegeMeltdown (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I agree that Education Dynamics has not been written about very often. But it has a near-monopoly over its function in the online education business. Online education is expanding quite a bit. The new administration at the Education Dept. is less forgiving of some of the excesses of the for-profit education sector, and many of the problems are related to recruitment, enrollment management and student loans. So my feeling is that the company is notable. On the other hand the article is an orphan, the lack of links does argue for non-notable. And finding good references has been difficult. It doesn't help that Springer publishes a book series Higher Education Dynamics.) So it might be reasonable to delete the article. And if the company becomes more obviously notable in the future it can be restored. -- M.boli (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Update: Seeing all the good work that has done, it is much more clear to me that the company is notable and the article should be kept. M.boli (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Logs:
 * So far two editors oppose deletion and one editor supports it. I read the "lack of quorum" policy as saying few responses with no opposition. M.boli (talk) 02:24, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I don't think that any of the independent sources are solely focused on this one company but the number of authors who believe it necessary to discuss this company in articles convinces me that it's probably (barely) notable by our standards. ElKevbo (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.