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 withdraw / Procedural keep. A deletion review had already been opened by the norminator of the first AFD User:Shadowowl (non-admin closure) Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 09:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Education Not for Sale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

I feel that the previous two AFDs were improperly closed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale was closed as keep with just one "keep" vote and the second Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Education Not for Sale (2nd nomination) was speedy kept despite the norminator having objections with the first AFD.

In addition, I have concerns with the references used. For example https://www.theguardian.com/education/mortarboard/2006/mar/24/danielrandalleducationnotf is a primary source written by the campaigner himself. The other two references https://web.archive.org/web/20070829054050/http://www.srcf.ucam.org/camens/ and https://archive.is/20061008073452/http://www.officeronline.co.uk/blogs/sofiebuckland/#selection-463.51-463.113 are also primary sources and look to be blogs. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:43, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Similiar AFD to this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Campaign for Free Education --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 15:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 16:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the nominator. Sourcing is non-existent; the Guardian article doesn't help since it's a blog post of a primary character. There's hits like this one, with a single mention of the local news variety--but that's it. Delete. 209.51.172.142 (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete like the other mentioned page, not a WP article at all, but abuse of our project for WP:SOAP. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2018 (UTC) strike per below. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Renominating for deletion within a few days of a keep close is an abuse of deletion process. The nom. attempted to do this the very next day, and I closed it as speedy keep on that basis; now it has immediate been renominated once more a day or two later. I'm not going to close it again myself,although I am convinced that such would be the proper course. One can of course renominate immediately after a no-consensus, though it usually gives better results to wait a week or two in hope of attracting other comments. One can & should certainly renominate immediately for an absolutely essential reason such as copyvio or blp violation. The alternative when the question is just notability is to wait a while. there is no fixed standard, but from prior discussions, the usually suggested time is a month. (this is not a comment on whether I think the article should actually be kept or deleted) DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Tyw7 when DGG closed the 2nd nomimation he pointed you to WP:Deletion review. Please explain what is unclear to you about that. Jytdog (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I gave a different reason to the first two, so technically this is a different AFD. I checked for third party sources unlike the first reviewer. And as DGG said the first there is no fixed standard over the length of time between nominations.

Secondly the first AFD was a split vote and should have been re listed, not closed as there isn't any consensus ie 1-1. If you want to go to deletion review, fine. But I think we should let this second AFD run its course. Also, I'm not involved in the first two review and to my understanding deletion review is more of an appeal by the norminator. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 21:10, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG was correct. The correct thing for you to do would have been to follow the deletion review process, the first step of which would be to ask the closer to reverse and if that fails to bring it to the community. I believe that process would be successful. This should be closed as the 2nd one was. This is not just BURO; we have processes for good reason. Please withdraw this. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well there is already a delete vote... I thought if an AFD has votes it should not be closed --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 23:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, and you need to go read the policies about deletion. I am about an inch from requesting a TBAN on you nominating pages for deletion. Again please withdraw this. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep: too soon after the previous nomination; WP:Deletion review is available. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, out of process, too soon after AfD1 and AfD2, not OK why the DRV is open. Impose 2 month moratorium before the next AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep, wrong forum and too soon after previous close. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:01, 31 July 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.