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 move to XiangYu Education Group and make the redirect from the school name. The article talks about more than just this school, & can be expanded with the other schools in the group. The group itself is clearly notable. I'm;ll do the page merge right after this closing.. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Huaian Foreign Language School[edit]

Huaian Foreign Language 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)

Thought the article claims that this school is famous, I can't see RS support for the fact that it is even notable. Created by an SPA. Tagged for notability since September. Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Logan Talk Contributions 12:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Logan Talk Contributions 12:22, 19 December 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, 26 December 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Un -- are you relying on the text in the article that is not sourced to RS coverage, or on independent RS coverage for that? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't seen RS support that verifies the notion that it is a high school, either at the article or in this discussion.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not at all clear to me. The article is entitled "Huaian Foreign Language School". It is listed in the category "Language schools". And its content is overwhelmingly about related schools (sometimes, we have school articles that bear the name of one school but discuss related schools). What makes you think it is about a region? You could write an article about a region, but it would not bear this name, be in this cat, and have this content. In any event, this afd is only about this article (as it stands), not about any new-named article with a new cat containing new content.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article, the opening paragraph is:

XiangYu Education Group is founded in 1999. Actually there was just one school that time. It's called Huaian Foreign Language Middle School. Not long after, the Education Group expanded. Till now, there are 10 schools in total, covering elementrary school, junior high school, senior high school and school of higher vocational Technology.

Huaian Foreign Language School actually seems to be a section about halfway down the page.
Yes, the article is misnamed and probably needs a move. It probably needs about half a dozen maintenance tags applied as well. Not delete. This is, in fact, an article into which other articles (if someone were to create an article on any of those schools listed, for example).
I'm a little bit concerned by what you're demonstrating here. You're essentially showing that you're not giving due thought to WP:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations, and how can you, if you're nominating so many articles? In particular these two points:
  • investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.
  • first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the ((notability)) template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.
I would suggest that you reconsider your approach to AfD's in light of the above. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 02:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find it quite curious that you would make such an assertion. Aren't you the same editor who just led us in an extended conversation because you misread a comment at the AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Martin of Tours Catholic School? And the same editor, who in that discussion kept on asserting against-policy considerations that lack consensus support, along the lines of "well, if it is possible there could be a ref, we should keep the article"? Of course its possible for any of us to make a mistake. But for you to do so in a conversation with me, and then the same hour accuse me of doing so -- and suggesting that, therefore, you are "a little bit concerned", is ... well, unusual.
As to the article itself, I've already addressed that above.
We have disagreed at more than one article today. But as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St Peter's Middle School, Old Windsor and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SJKC Damansara, I think that I've shown a care for what our consensus is and for the facts and for RS support, while you have been more given to making assumptions.
Curiously, as you are militating for fewer articles being redirected, others are saying that I should not even worry about editors who have your view, but simply BOLDly redirect such articles.
As to the rest of your post -- perhaps you are mistaking me for someone else? Where, pray tell, have I ever said that an article should be deleted "because I never heard of it? Where have I ever said that an article should be deleted "because I do not consider it worthy?" This is truly bizarre. Those aren't reasons for deletion, and I don't believe I've posed them as reasons here. Why are you making things up? This is more than a little odd.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I make mistakes and misread things every now and then, mea culpa. Those two points are directly quoted from that WP:Guide to deletion. Let me be clear that I am not directing those two accusations (from which you seemed to be taking offense) at you, they're from the Considerations section.
I've just looked through your contributions, and I really can't see that you've done a lot to satisfy either of those two points from WP:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations. That being said, I don't see a lot of activity on your part to satisfy those guidelines. I don't see a lot of your "rewriting" any school articles (or many other articles). I also don't see you raising issues of notability on any article's talk page. Nor have you inserted any references into any article. It seems to me that the majority of your activity seems to be here, at AfD, without properly taking into account those considerations. To be fair, I only looked at the last 5000 odd of your contributions, and I didn't look all that hard, but I should have been able to see some sign somewhere that you've engaged with those two points.
And here (i.e., in this discussion) is where it becomes a problem. This article indicates, in its opening paragraph, that it is refering to a collective of schools. Yet you ask on that issue, twice. It is content poor, badly titled and badly needs a rewrite. Why don't you withdraw this nomination and have a go at doing that? I'll help as much as I can if you'd like. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 07:23, 7 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.
More