Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Japanese Red Cross Hiroshima College of Nursing

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. – Joe (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese Red Cross Hiroshima College of Nursing[edit]

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

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

No RS can be found, reliability in question. Doesn't comply with WP:N. WikiAviator (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WikiAviator (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If I remember, a university is generally considered notable. There might not be a lot of English reliable sources; but it is reasonable to assume there are some Japanese resources, perhaps offline. —- Taku (talk) 01:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-awarding institution. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The above keep votes seem to be arguing essentially from WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which is not always a great reason for keeping, however there does appear to be some WP:SIGCOV of this institution - 1 2 3 EDIT: and 4 FOARP (talk) 11:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First reference is a trivial mention in a overall book about nursing, Second reads like a press release or paid coverage, Third looks like typical coverage talking about international students, so not enough to justify (in my mind) Significant coverage. Hasteur (talk) 11:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understand your objections, what about ref. 4 I've added in? FOARP (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing you did a search for the subject, being that I don't have access to the journal I can't judge the content. I'll accept it might be a valid source, however without seeing the content I can't lean either way. For all we know that Journal may accept numerous promotional content papers or it might be a "Pay to play" journal, both of which would disqualify both the journal and the paper. Hasteur (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify: Because there are no references presented we can't verify the presumed notability. TakuyaMurata is right in that we generally accept universities, but the notability has to be proven with the references. I invite @Necrothesp: to provide references/citations to prove the notability. Open to letting this be sent to Draft or User namespace to correct defects to save it prior to deletion. Hasteur (talk) 11:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When I see these institutions listed for deletion, my rule of thumb is always: would a similar institution in the United Kingdom, United States, Canada, etc, ever be likely to be deleted? If the answer is no, then I do not think there is good reason for deletion (see WP:SYSTEMIC). That is, I think, the case here and indeed the case with pretty much every accredited degree-awarding institution around the world. I'm sure plenty of sources could be found in Japanese, which is not a language I speak. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp You are citing an essay, which is pretty pointless in AfD discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:SYSTEMIC requires us to assume WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Looking at JP-language coverage via machine translation, though, I see at least one further potential source: 5. It may be that someone fluent in Japanese might do a better job of finding sources.
@Jovanmilic97 - essays are useful for persuasion and as a way of explaining reasoning. FOARP (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Especially if they are widely accepted, as this one is. But it's also common sense. No, I don't think it means there must be sources either, but given this institution is in one of the world's most advanced countries I would be very surprised if there weren't. Once again, the application of common sense is always a good idea. It mystifies me that some editors seem to think that citing "rules" means they don't need to apply it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that a university is generally considered notable. I also agree that there might not be a lot of English reliable sources; but it is reasonable to assume there are both online/offline Japanese resources. In addition, the article serves a very useful purpose. With aging populations throughout the developed world occuring due to the baby boomers and with below replacement levels of fertility in the developed world, there is projected to be a huge shortage of nurses.Knox490 (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2019 (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.