Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School

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 keep. Courcelles 17:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ling Liang Church E Wun Secondary School[edit]

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

Multiple reasons: needs a total re-write if it's notable enough to stay; unlikely to find more than one source for information - could possibly be moved to AfC? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 12:11, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - invariably if enough research is carried out for high schools sources can be found to meet WP:GNG. Cleanup is a matter of tagging for improvement not deletion. To avoid systemic bias we should await the finding of local or Chinese language sources. TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage; "unlikely to find more than one source for information." I don't think it's true at all that high schools will always have enough sources to be kept. Neutrality^talk 02:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article has been completely rewritten since nomination, and multiple references have been added, which is no small feat for a school located in China, I have to agree with TerriersFan that it appears we could find more sources if we give it some additional time. While a small specialty school may not be verifiable or have any coverage, that's not the case here.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Keep it now!: that's a massive improvement now; if I'd encountered it looking like this at first glance, I wouldn't have suggested deletion :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:27, 2 September 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.