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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yangzhou Xinhua High School[edit]

Yangzhou Xinhua High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG and NORG, ref 1 reads like a press release, although I cannot find markings noting that it is. Ref 2, 4, and 6 are not independent (see comment below). Ref 3 is a 525 page book that mentions the school three times from what I can see, probably passing mentions. Further reading section consists of what I think is studies conducted by the school. (Google search returned no additional results that are reliable. zh-wiki article does not seem to have any useful citations that may contribute to notability. Justiyaya 03:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Cunard: Thanks for pointing the part in WP:NSCHOOL out, I didn't notice that. I think an argument for COI can be made for source three based on its promotional tone. (from google translate the article includes) "More than 80 years of brilliance have created the Xinhua spirit of 'unity and hard work, hard work, truth-seeking and innovation, and scientific development'" really stands out as being a press release or somehow affiliated with the school. I don't think four or five provides significant coverage given the context, both being books that only contains 2-3 mentions of the subject. 1/2 are quite convincing in terms of GNG given the argument by Jumpytoo and Cunard though. Justiyaya 06:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I just googled it and the third source mentioned above seems to be taken from the school's website, with promotional tone. So there may be a conflict of interest. -- Ib 💬 08:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for finding this. I am striking the third source. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 1 August 2022 (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.