Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiangsu and Chekiang Primary 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. It is clear the article will be kept, and there is no point wasting more time on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kiangsu and Chekiang Primary 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)
Primary schools are not considered notable by default, and no reason is given to regard this as an exception. Also, the article is unsourced. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable school. Reason was given when it was deprodded. Now sourced. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Since I started this AfD and said that the article was unsourced, eight references have been added. I have looked at all of them. Unfortunately the little amount of Chinese I learnt many years ago and subsequently largely forgot is of no use in following them, so I am relying on Google translations. One of the references is a photocopy of a newspaper, so Google translation is not possible, and I can make no comment on its content. (Incidentally, it is almost certainly a copyright infringement, and so should not be linked to from Wikipedia, which is why I am not adding a link here.) http://www.chsc.hk/psp/psp_sch_list.php?lang_id=1&search_mode=&frmMode=pagebreak&district_id=2&page=3 is a mere list of schools, and does nothing towards establishing notability. http://kcs.edu.hk/history.htm is promotional in character, and the Google translation includes the notice "Copyright by Kiangsu & Chekiang School (Nursery, Kindergarten, Primary & Int'l Section) 2000", so it is clearly not an independent source. http://lifein.hk/Education/PrimarySchDet.aspx?id=491&name=Kiangsu%20&%20Chekiang%20Primary%20School%20%28W.D.%29 is a bare list of facts about the school, such as the school's address, the name of the principal, the year of foundation, the school hours, etc, so it does nothing to establish notability. http://www.wxjy.com.cn/xwzx/readnews.asp?newsid=17648 gives one passing mention of the school. http://life.mingpao.com/htm/primary2006/cfm/content.cfm?Path=sch_pri/sch_pri7.htm does give more significant coverage to the school. The page is written in glowing terms, so much so as to cause me to wonder how much of an independent source it is. I have looked round the site to try to determine its nature. The site has various pages giving glowing praise to various private schools, and also at least one page generously praising private education in general. I am open to correction by anyone with a knowledge of Chinese, but it seems to me that the site is a promotional vehicle for schools. http://www.webcitation.org/64T4KyNk4 also gives glowing praise to the school, but is not very substantial: certainly not enough so to establish notability. http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/TC/Content_6605/KiangsuChekiang.pdf is a report of an appraisal by the Education Bureau of Hong Kong. The fact that such an appraisal has been carried out does nothing to establish notability: millions of schools undergo inspections and appraisals. Unfortunately, although the author of the article has evidently put some effort into providing references, the sum total of them comes nowhere near to the substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources that we need. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement that all citations be independent of the subject. I would add that for a school that has had the same principal for 48 years, their histories are inevitably intimately intertwined, and it is wholly appropriate to rely on it as a substantial source. In addition, the key source for this article is the Ming Pao article (news clipping), and while the web page itself may be copyright violation (although it may not), it does indicate such an article's existence can be verified. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree w/Oh that independent sources are appropriate (within limits) to use to source an article, but also believe that they do not count towards notability. Oh -- we have a convention of not keeping primary schools as stand-alone article, absent unusual circumstances. Can you clarify for us the full breadth of the circumstances here that you feel warrant an exception to the usual approach of redirecting or deleting or merging such an article? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that despite the convention for not keeping primary school articles, that does not mean that all PS articles have to be deleted. I live in Hong Kong, and know for a fact that the school is extremely notable. You stop anybody in the street – and I mean any Hong Kong resident, and they will tell you exactly what this school is notable for (as clearly stated in the lead section). I will try to find more independent sources to further develop the article. As web archives of Chinese newspapers are somewhat inadequate, I will have to look at printed sources. It's clearly inappropriate to merge or redirect, for I can see no suitable candidate target. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree both that a) the convention appears to exist; and b) the convention does not mean that all PS articles have to be deleted. What I am trying to get at is what the verifiable circumstances are that put this PS into the "exception" category. It may be that some would suggest a redirect/merge -- if that were the course -- to the municipality, but hopefully we won't need to go that route. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Hope" is not relevant here: in many cases, mergers or redirects are fine. But in this case, as Ohconfucius mentioned, it would be a challenge to find an existing appropriate target. North Point would be a redirect/merge target candidate, but the material would fit rather poorly in the article. Maybe an alternative would be to create the Kiangsu & Chekiang Residents (HK) Association article, and include the material in an "education" section, as it is also related to Kiangsu-Chekiang College (Shatin) and Kiangsu-Chekiang College (Kwai Chung). In any case, establishing the first Mandarin speaking school in Cantonese and English speaking Hong Kong in 1953 (then a British Colony) had major political significance in a tense context, both locally (Hong Kong 1956 riots), in China (Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns) and in the region (Korean War). I therefore believe that noone here would disagree with the fact that this school is notable, or is at least very probably notable. What is lacking are sources accepted as reliable to support some of the key information in the article. I am sure that we all have already seen this situation many times and we all know that such sources will eventually be found. Some ways to improve the article could be to give more context: 1) about the significance of Mandarin teaching at that time in Hong Kong and 2) give some information about the Kiangsu & Chekiang Residents (HK) Association itself. olivier (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree both that a) the convention appears to exist; and b) the convention does not mean that all PS articles have to be deleted. What I am trying to get at is what the verifiable circumstances are that put this PS into the "exception" category. It may be that some would suggest a redirect/merge -- if that were the course -- to the municipality, but hopefully we won't need to go that route. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue that despite the convention for not keeping primary school articles, that does not mean that all PS articles have to be deleted. I live in Hong Kong, and know for a fact that the school is extremely notable. You stop anybody in the street – and I mean any Hong Kong resident, and they will tell you exactly what this school is notable for (as clearly stated in the lead section). I will try to find more independent sources to further develop the article. As web archives of Chinese newspapers are somewhat inadequate, I will have to look at printed sources. It's clearly inappropriate to merge or redirect, for I can see no suitable candidate target. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree w/Oh that independent sources are appropriate (within limits) to use to source an article, but also believe that they do not count towards notability. Oh -- we have a convention of not keeping primary schools as stand-alone article, absent unusual circumstances. Can you clarify for us the full breadth of the circumstances here that you feel warrant an exception to the usual approach of redirecting or deleting or merging such an article? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no requirement that all citations be independent of the subject. I would add that for a school that has had the same principal for 48 years, their histories are inevitably intimately intertwined, and it is wholly appropriate to rely on it as a substantial source. In addition, the key source for this article is the Ming Pao article (news clipping), and while the web page itself may be copyright violation (although it may not), it does indicate such an article's existence can be verified. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: an important part of the history of North Point and Hong Kong in general. This is a good reason to regard this primary school as an exception. Plus, the article is now sourced, even if the sources are not perfect at the moment. As a consequence, I cannot agree with the nomination. olivier (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article demonstrates the notability of the school through notable alumni, references etc. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although this may be a minority viewpoint I believe that the deletionists are being foolhardy in their blind opposition to schools articles. Every school office I have been to has dozens of newspaper articles about the school framed on the wall. This clearly meets GNG as they are multiple non-trivial sources. Therefore based on NRVE the only decision should be keep. Some schools are lucky enough to have these sources on google news but many older and in fact more historically notable ones do not and that is a shame. Microfilm is just as important. Based on this experience it should be clear that all schools are notable. Also at the very least this school should be merged into the relevant diocesan article, not deleted outright. This preserves the edit history for when sources are found. It should also be noted that this is part of a mass nomination and that should be frowned upon by the community as it shows there was unlikely a committed effort to find proper sources before nomination. I don't think even a PROD was tried first here. =( This school in particular seems to have a size to it showing obvious notability.LuciferWildCat (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ok so the sources are not Time (magazine) but they aren't terrible either, and there are a reasonable number of them. As for 'why is this school notable': most are the sources are consistent in their coverage of this school as a pioneer of Mandarin teaching in Hong Kong. Pol430 talk to me 21:57, 8 January 2012 (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.