Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High School Attached to Beijing University of Technology


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

High School Attached to Beijing University of Technology

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable school lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Article was previously PRODed. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools,  and China. 33ABGirl (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added more sources. I believe the sources now in the article demonstrate that it meets GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding the sources. Please find my assessment on the sources in the current article (including those existing prior to your edits) below per WP:SIRS.


 * (added 11 June) In general, most sources fail WP:ORGDEPTH, with only brief mentions or coverage of the subject. Content is limited to local events, brief announcements and routine coverage, making them WP:TRIVCOV. The tone of much of the sources are also WP:PROMOTIONAL and/or are not WP:INDEPENDENT, failing WP:ORGIND. Much of the sources are also state-owned or party-owned, which precludes the sources as WP:RS in principle, per WP:DEPS & WP:RSP. While some in-depth coverage is presented, they fall into the pervious category of sources. As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, the sources do not establish WP:ORGSIG.


 * In summary, I believe the presented sources  does not  fulfill WP:SIGCOV, so WP:GNG has not been met for the article subject.
 * {| class="wikitable"

!Link !Source !Independent? !Reliable? !Significant coverage? !Count source toward GNG?
 * 1
 * 教育家
 * No, published by Guangming Daily, a newspaper owned by the Chinese Communist Party.
 * No
 * Yes
 * No
 * 2, 3
 * School Website
 * No, owned by the school.
 * Yes
 * No, only a brief introduction.
 * No
 * 4
 * 教育装备采购网
 * No, trade association website for school equipment. Article is a "success story" on one of its members who supplied the school.
 * No, per WP:PROMO
 * Yes
 * No
 * 5
 * 教师之友
 * No, published by 四川新闻出版局, a publication owned by the Government of China.
 * No
 * Partially, only focused on a single test initiative of the school.
 * No
 * 6
 * 瞭望
 * No, published by 新华通讯社, a publication owned by the Government of China.
 * No
 * Partially, only focused on a single test initiative ( same  as no.5) of the school.
 * No
 * 7, 8
 * 中国青年报
 * No, published by China Youth Daily, a publication owned by the Chinese Communist Party.
 * No
 * Partially, only focused on a single test initiative ( same  as no.5, 6) of the school.
 * No
 * 9, 10
 * 中国高校之窗
 * No, published by China Education Television, a publication owned by the Government of China.
 * No
 * Yes
 * No
 * }
 * 33ABGirl (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added an archived link to replace the dead link to the school's website, though this source is not independent and does not count towards satisfying GNG. However, the news sources' indirect national government or party ownership should not affect their reliability or independence when reporting on a local high school for purposes of GNG. Guangming Daily and China Youth Daily are standard news sources in China; it's not like they're published by the school itself or the school district. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As per WP:DEPS & WP:RSP, significantly more scrutiny is applied to state-owned and party-owned publications from China, with the general consensus being that such publications are unreliable. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. There are all sorts of sources that have some level of Chinese government ownership, and some are more reliable than others. In fact, a lot of the major news organizations in China have indirect government ties; if we were to arbitrarily exclude all of these sources, we would lose a lot of important and generally reliable sources for China-related topics. I'm not sure why you linked WP:DEPS, as none of the cited sources are listed there as far as I can tell. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replacing the dead-link, I've updated SIRS table to include my assessment of the source. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * No
 * }
 * 33ABGirl (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added an archived link to replace the dead link to the school's website, though this source is not independent and does not count towards satisfying GNG. However, the news sources' indirect national government or party ownership should not affect their reliability or independence when reporting on a local high school for purposes of GNG. Guangming Daily and China Youth Daily are standard news sources in China; it's not like they're published by the school itself or the school district. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As per WP:DEPS & WP:RSP, significantly more scrutiny is applied to state-owned and party-owned publications from China, with the general consensus being that such publications are unreliable. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not correct. There are all sorts of sources that have some level of Chinese government ownership, and some are more reliable than others. In fact, a lot of the major news organizations in China have indirect government ties; if we were to arbitrarily exclude all of these sources, we would lose a lot of important and generally reliable sources for China-related topics. I'm not sure why you linked WP:DEPS, as none of the cited sources are listed there as far as I can tell. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replacing the dead-link, I've updated SIRS table to include my assessment of the source. 33ABGirl (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Notability (organizations and companies), which says: "All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)" Sources  The sources added by .  The abstract notes: "北京工业大学附属中学(以下简称"工大附中")始建于1957年,一校三址分布在CBD核心区域,是一所集小学、初中、高中为一体的十二年一贯制学校. 经过半个多世纪的发展,学校先后被评为北京市示范校、北京市科技示范校、北京市金鹏科技团、翱翔计划生源校等. 学校总占地140亩,共有65个教学班,2000多名学生,教职员工277人,其中特级教师10人,高级职称教师75人,中级职称教师72人,省、市级骨干教师8人,区级学科带头人、骨干教师、优秀青年教师34人,硕士以上学历和研究生课程班结业人数122人. " From Google Translate: "The High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology (hereinafter referred to as "High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology") was founded in 1957. It has three sites located in the core area of the CBD. It is a 12-year consistent school integrating primary school, junior high school and high school. After more than half a century of development, the school has been rated as Beijing Model School, Beijing Science and Technology Model School, Beijing Jinpeng Science and Technology Group, and Aoxiang Program Student Source School. The school covers a total area of 140 acres, with a total of 65 teaching classes, more than 2,000 students, and 277 faculty members, including 10 special-grade teachers, 75 teachers with senior professional titles, 72 teachers with intermediate professional titles, and 8 provincial and municipal backbone teachers. There are 34 district-level academic leaders, backbone teachers, and outstanding young teachers, and 122 people who have completed a master's degree or above and graduate courses."  The abstract notes: "今年，北京工业大学附属中学也对这种新的模式进行尝试—学校将新入学的高一年级学生分为五个男生班和五个女生班，各占一个楼层进行教学. " From Google Translate: "This year, the High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology is also trying this new model—the school divides the newly enrolled first-year students into five boys' classes and five girls' classes, each occupying a floor for teaching."  The abstract notes: "据9月14日北京某报报道，继去年上海市八中在高一年级中实行男女分班教学的新模式后，今年，北京工业大学附属中学也在高一年级对这种模式进行了尝试. " From Google Translate: "According to a report by a Beijing newspaper on September 14, after Shanghai No. 8 Middle School implemented a new model of male-female class teaching in the first grade last year, this year, the High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology also tried this model in the first grade."  The article notes: "女生班的同学感觉，没有男生的课堂气氛比较沉闷. “男生在时，会接老师的话岔儿，课堂很活跃，现在太闷了. 尤 其是上理科课时，基本上没人回答问题. ”一位女生说. " From Google Translate: "When the reporter arrived at the High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology, it was just after school time. The second floor where the boys' classes were located was very lively, with the boys playing and making loud noises; the third floor where the girls' classes were located was relatively quiet."  The article notes: "继去年上海市八中在高一年级中实行男女分班教学的新模式后，今年，北京工业大学附属中学也对这种新的教学模式 进行了尝试. 学校将新入学的高一年级新生分为五个男生班和五个女生班，各占一个楼层进行教学. " From Google Translate: "After Shanghai No. 8 Middle School implemented a new model of teaching male and female students in separate classes in the first grade last year, this year, the High School Affiliated to Beijing University of Technology also tried this new teaching model. The school divides the newly enrolled first-year freshmen into five boys' classes and five girls' classes, each occupying a floor for teaching."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow High School Attached to Beijing University of Technology to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing the sources. As all the sources you have provided were  already on the page , please refer to my SIRS above in the reply to Mx. Granger. 33ABGirl (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

</li></ul>
 * Keep These sources count towards WP:GNG. The person who loves reading (talk) 00:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.