Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Staff and Educational Development Association


 * 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. Nakon 04:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Staff and Educational Development Association

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I see no evidence that this is a major professional organization, or that its credentials are required for any position.  DGG ( talk ) 01:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I've had a look at the website and it seems to be a major organisation. Its members include many major UK universities, including the University of Edinburgh and Queen's University Belfast. It's also registered as a UK charity and definitely notable. Worth keeping, but the article requires some work. st170etalk 01:36, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  02:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Referenced in various books and an awarder of post-nominals. Seems to be a significant and important professional organisation. AusLondonder (talk) 06:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as I also concur the current information is still questionable and I see no obvious inherited notability to suggest instantly keeping and improving. Restart if needed when better, SwisterTwister   talk  07:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The above delete opinion was typed in and only 1 minute 09 seconds after the user's previous !vote in . ––Sam Sailor Talk! 19:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  01:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable meeting WP:ORGDEPTH through non-trivial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. I have added a handful:
 * Sam Sailor Talk! 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sam Sailor Talk! 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sam Sailor Talk! 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sam Sailor Talk! 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sam Sailor Talk! 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sam Sailor Talk! 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sam Sailor Talk! 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:ORGDEPTH per a review of sources presented by . Also, I don't view the current information as "questionable", whatever that means, Sam Sailor verified information in the article quite nicely (diff). This is often all that it takes; an interested user to come along and improve an article. Also of note is that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in an article. North America1000 18:56, 14 May 2016 (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.