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 --Mike Cline (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fengyong University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

According to the Chinese Wikipedia article, this university no longer exists and has not existed since 1933. The Chinese Wikipedia article provides a little more information than the two sentences here, but not much more, and cites no sources. As I have no verifiable sources here, I think, reluctantly, I am asking for deletion, but an alternative is to redirect to Northeastern University (Shenyang, China), which the Chinese Wikipedia article indicates the university was merged into — but, again, cited no source for that proposition for. Nlu (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Acather96 (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Of course, if reliable and verifiable sources show that it did exist prior to 1933, then it would be notable. Perhaps someone can provide a sourced info, although most links would defy Google translation. What little I could find in Romanized alphabet texts was a reference in the memoirs of Great Leader Kim Il-Sung. Everything else was a mirror of the Wikipedia article. Mandsford 02:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- notability not demonstrated in a reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This certainly existed and was disbanded, and our standard practice is to allow articles on any verified educational institutions at high school level or above. The fact that this no longer exists is irrelevant to any decision to keep or delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable, perhaps (I do not doubt its existence), but the problem is that there is simply very little verifiable information available; ergo, as I wrote above, with some reluctance, I still believe a deletion is warranted since what is in the current article simply doesn't convey any real useful information, and there is not much to add to it. --Nlu (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For a Chinese university that closed in 1933 we can be pretty sure that sources findable online in English are far less than the tip of the iceberg of sources that could be used to add to this. Do you really believe that a university confirmed by a source published by the University of Michigan Press to have been established by the authorities of the world's most populous nation to train their supporters hasn't had even more significant coverage in reliable print sources? And, if you don't like American sources, Kim Il-sung wrote that students of this university took up arms against the Soviet Union. We wouldn't dream of deleting an article on any university in the United Kingdom or the United States, so why should we apply a different standard to China? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The sources above demonstrate notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:09, 18 January 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.