Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuquan Olympic School
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. with no further argument after 2 relistings, there's no consensus to do anything. AfDs have to be closed eventually. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fuquan Olympic School[edit]
- Fuquan Olympic School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
To pass WP:notability, this school should have received "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Yet, it hasn't been discussed in a single secondary source. The only two references are to a government webpage that no longer works that describes the school in six lines,[1] and to a short blurb in Chinese about the founder of the school which doesn't even mention the school.[2] The claim that the school "has won numerous awards" is unreferenced. The rest of the info is trivial (name of director, number of students, school facilities, etc.). Clearly non-notable. Madalibi (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete generally we like to keep schools if they are secondary schools, or post-secondary. primary schools need to make some specific claim to notability or be the subject of significant attention in secondary sources. There's no specific policy for schools, WP:GNG and WP:notability (organizations and companies) apply. but general outcomes is informative. No indication of notability, couldn't find any secondary sources that mention it. Metal lunchbox (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. First, the reference to a government webpage still works. I clicks it and can see its content. Second, I have added more references that can prove this school is notable. --Pengyanan (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for adding details and references to the article, Pengyanan! This is a step in the right direction, but I still think this school is not notable. 1. We are not told why the title of "Experimental School for the Reform of English-Language Education at the Elementary Level" makes a primary school notable enough to have its own wiki. 2. Every city in China has its own "first-ranked schools." This is just administrative classification, not a proof of notability. 3. The new lead says that Fuquan is a "notable school in this city and neighboring area," but this will remain an empty assertion if it's not supported by more concrete evidence. 4. Of the three new references, two articles are from a local newspaper (the Jiangmen Daily 江门日报), and one from a regional newspaper (the Nanfang Daily 南方日报). These articles basically say that the school is employing well-qualified teachers, that the students do well on standardized tests, and that some of them even win prizes in math competitions. We may be getting somewhere, but I think we're still far from "significant coverage" and "notability." Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for your comment. I added one more reference, which reported that in March 2010, Fuquan was rated as one of the Top 100 Private Schools in China by the Ministry of Education. This in my view clearly establishes this school's notability. --Pengyanan (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just an observation: "Top 100 Private Schools in China" is not awarded by the Ministry of Education, but by several non-government committees on private-school education (see [3] (under subtitle 镜头三) and [4]). The exact name of the award is "中国民办教育百强学校" (see this search). Fuquan does appear on the 2010 list. Finally, the schools given this title change every year (see 2009 and 2008 lists). This is just to give more factual information to other editors so that they have richer info to base their decision on. Madalibi (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for your comment. I added one more reference, which reported that in March 2010, Fuquan was rated as one of the Top 100 Private Schools in China by the Ministry of Education. This in my view clearly establishes this school's notability. --Pengyanan (talk) 07:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thanks for adding details and references to the article, Pengyanan! This is a step in the right direction, but I still think this school is not notable. 1. We are not told why the title of "Experimental School for the Reform of English-Language Education at the Elementary Level" makes a primary school notable enough to have its own wiki. 2. Every city in China has its own "first-ranked schools." This is just administrative classification, not a proof of notability. 3. The new lead says that Fuquan is a "notable school in this city and neighboring area," but this will remain an empty assertion if it's not supported by more concrete evidence. 4. Of the three new references, two articles are from a local newspaper (the Jiangmen Daily 江门日报), and one from a regional newspaper (the Nanfang Daily 南方日报). These articles basically say that the school is employing well-qualified teachers, that the students do well on standardized tests, and that some of them even win prizes in math competitions. We may be getting somewhere, but I think we're still far from "significant coverage" and "notability." Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - to be in the "Top 100 Private Schools in China" in a country as big as China is some achievement and enough for notability. TerriersFan (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Michaela den (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 20:58, 29 August 2011 (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.