Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Foundation for Educational Research

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

National Foundation for Educational Research

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

I cannot find any significant coverage, so I think this fails WP:ORG. Tacyarg (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeI think the article should be expanded rather than deleted. While not appearing to be a "major" educational center, I think there are other Wiki articles with similar relevance. Ravenanation (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment - I honestly thought it would be easy to find sources to improve this article, but I'm not finding anything except their own research. Tacyarg (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I can quite see why this nomination has been made, I still think that deletion would be the wrong decision - the NFER is a distinctly reputable (and quasi-official) producer and publisher of educational research, whose work tends to be on matters of current interest to British educational policymakers and is highly likely to inform their decisions. However, for the general public, this work is not exactly bedtime reading. This puts the NFER in pretty much the situation for which (admittedly for individuals rather than organisations) we have WP:NSCHOLAR#1 - it far more often gets passing mentions (which are likely to generate reader traffic to Wikipedia looking for further information) citing the work it produces than substantial coverage of the organisation itself. In this kind of situation, notability can be fairly safely assumed, though we do need at least some reliable (if not necessarily detailed) sources to support the content of the article. And, while I hope that more and better can be found, the following, while not ideal, look at least adequate for this purpose: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] (for the last of these, a snippet suggests that the best information may be on page 94, which is unfortunately not part of the preview). PWilkinson (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2018 (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.