Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SFEDI

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 of the debate was No Consensus Redwolf24 (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

SFEDI

Speedy deleted on 8 April, taken to Deletion review which upheld that "Unremarkable people or groups" does not apply to companies. This is a sub-stub that makes no claim to notability, so unless citations are provided that demonstrate this meets the guidelines for inclusion of companies I recommend deletion. brenneman^{L} 01:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:CORP --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep but needs a lot of work. This is a governmentally formed associated entity in the UK. It may be noteworthy as a reflection of the perceived economic and political concerns that brought about its creation. Its methods of and effectiveness at meeting its mandate could be of interest to UK readers. That said, the BBC on-line news pages don't turn up a single entry for SFEDI on their search pages. Ande B 01:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, it doesn't seem to be a government formed entity, but more of an organization that works for the government--TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I see that you are right, TBC, and I should have clicked through a few more links. But I don't know how different this entity is from SCORE, which has its own article. As it is now, the SFEDI article is rather worthless. I don't personally care if the article gets deleted but it seems to me to be more of a candidate for serious improvement than deletion. Ande B 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per TBC. SorryGuy 06:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Improve. Having found some useful articles on other entities in the alphabet soup that is the British vocation qualifications industry, I created the article as a sort of placeholder, hoping that someone would add detail. I believe it is a noteworthy body, and will myself fill it out eventually, if no one better qualifed gets there first. Please be patient: Rome wasn't built in a day etc. The article should probably be under SFEDI's full name, with a redirect from "SFEDI", but I don't know how to do that.TobyJ 10:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Although it is not obvious from the article, this is a company set up (and largely funded) by the UK Government to design standards for training in the small and medium enterprise sector. Its influence is out of all proportion to its size. Although it is not I think a QUANGO as such, it is pretty close. Just zis Guy you know? 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A very cursory run through UK Google under the full name turned up references for this outfit on the government's SBS site [1], the Scottish Parliament site [www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/ historic/x-enterprise/inquiries-01/lli-submissions/ell-038.pdf] , the BBC's website [www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/A1178057] , the London government website [www.londoncentrallsc.gov.uk/upload/lclsc-web/1-5%20Partners/PR06ESFLearner%20achievesSFEDIacceditation.pdf] among many others, and turns up over 500 unique G-hits. This is pretty solid, folks. RGTraynor 14:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Badly in need of improvement, but a stub is better than nothing and it seems pretty clearly notable to me based on the comments above. Keep.-Polotet 00:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• I applied for the deletion review, and I am glad to know that the process works. My vote, however, is Delete per WP:CORP. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:04, 21 April 2006 (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.