Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parents for 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 keep. (non-admin closure) sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Parents for Education

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A truly horrible article whose sources are one newspaper report and a whole bunch of WP:PRIMARY material from scribd or the organisation's own website. Started by a WP:SPA with no edits outside of starting two articles related to Opus Dei. Perilously close to a speedy candidate. Guy (Help!) 14:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -Other than this I found no secondary sources to establish notability. ABF99 (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unable to find any secondary sources other than the one ABF99 listed above. For searching purposes, the subject is alternatively known as PARED and The PARED Foundation, it appears. ~ RobTalk 16:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I have found and added several sources, including the one linked above. I strongly suspect that other sources are out there, possibly offline as when this was founded news was rarely online. I think what is already listed passes the WP:GNG, particularly with the KDP record article from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00228958.1993.10531866?journalCode=ukdr20#.VdNE5pcdddA and the Australian article linked above. DES (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I now count at least 6 secondary sources, with at least two of them having quite substantial coverage. DES (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The KDP article is written by a founder of PARED, if that changes anything for you. ~ RobTalk 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are abolutely correct, . I don't know how I missed that, it is in large letters on the very page I linked to. That does reduce the value of that source significantly. Of course the fact that the source was willing to accept and publish the piece has some value still, but quite possibly not much, as far as notability goes. I still think this should be kept, but not as strongly as I did previously, unless other sources are brought forward. DES (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 21:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 21:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 21:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  10:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think we have to keep this because it appears to meet GNG and ORG, but it needs to be severely edited for promotion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2015 (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.