Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SI-UK

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 Procedural keep‎. I respectfully conclude this discussion, in line with the fourth criterion, as a procedural keep. The closure is based on the fact that the editor who initiated the discussion was blocked on the 1913th of June, when they started it the same day they made the nomination. According to WP:SK guidelines, if "The nominator was blocked or banned at the time of making the nomination, so they were not supposed to edit. In that case, the nominated page is kept while the nomination can be removed from the log". Considering this circumstance, it appears that the ongoing AfD (Articles for Deletion) discussion may not be considered valid, and it would be appropriate to close it as a procedural keep, especially considering the general consensus among most participants. However, I will proceed with reviewing the article's references and, if necessary, will initiate a new deletion discussion. If anyone has already assessed the sourcing and believes the page fails to meet the required standards, please feel free to renominate it. (non-admin closure) AmusingWeasel (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

SI-UK

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

SI-UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP as none of the sources provides significant coverage on this company. Coverage is limited to badly disguised press releases and passing mentions. Maduant (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC))

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, and United Kingdom. Maduant (talk) 19:30, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan, Thailand, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
• Keep: This company is among the largest, and there are several reputable sources like IndianExpress, FreePressJournal, BusinessWorld, HeraldScotland, and DailyExcelsior that provide comprehensive coverage. Additionally, there are numerous other sources available online. The company operates in over 40 countries and has partnerships with leading UK universities. It also received a 'highly commended' recognition in the Student Counselling Organization of the Year category at the 2021 Pioneer Awards. By incorporating these sources, the article can be enhanced and benefit greatly. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to retain the article and mark it for improvement instead of deletion.Zehnasheen (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
• Delete: the article should be deleted in accordance with the rationale provided by the nominator. RPSkokie (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Glanced through some of the references, thinly veiled press releases indeed. However, if the nom was blocked then is the afd still valid? --Ouro (blah blah) 02:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  Comment: Given that the nominator is presently under a ban, it may be essential to adhere to the appropriate procedural closure and then proceed with re-nominating the article. RPSkokie (talk) 09:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

  Response to comment is re-nominating the article prescribed under procedure or voluntary? Can You point me to the rules please? --Ouro (blah blah) 15:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

A nomination can continue if the nominator is discovered to be a sockpuppet. What I have seen is that if there were no "Delete" votes, then the discussions are closed early as a procedural "Keep". But since there is a difference of opinion here, the discussion can continue. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 24 June 2023 (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.