Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hohhot No.2 Middle School


 * 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 redirect to Hohhot. The opinion by Liusine must be disregarded because it starts off with a personal attack ("The editor, Kudpung (from England), is biased towards Inner Mongolia and China ..."). Everybody else, with one exception, agrees that this does not merit an article.  Sandstein  20:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hohhot No.2 Middle School

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Run of the mill middle school/junior secondary school. Redirect turned back into a non notable article. Middle schools are not automatically notable. No specific claims to notability. No reliable independent sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The editor, Kudpung (from England), is biased towards Inner Mongolia and China by marking this page for deletion. Hohhot No.2 high school is the most notable one in Inner Mongolia. If the editor’s argument were true, that will automatically qualify the deletion of hundreds of England high schools from Wikipedia. Kudpung is also biased in his communication with me. If he can dominate Wikipedia in a way already shown like this, I will advise my American and Chinese colleagues not to trust a word on Wikipedia, especially those edited by him. For example, he edited a page Hanley Castle High School, which is not a selective school. But Hohhot No.2 high school is more famous and more selective in Inner Mongolia. In Kudpung's view, any England middle school is superior than the notable high schools elsewhere in the world? Does English speaking people have the right to understand the world?

I have added references about "key school of Inner Mongolia and news reports in China". If you can Goolge translate Chinese, please go ahead and verify the sources! Liusine (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Hohhot No.2 Middle School for deletion ''A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hohhot No.2 Middle School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hohhot No.2 Middle School until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.  Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)''
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * redirect. It seems like the sort of place that could be notable, but is lacking any evidence of notability. As I write the only sources are to the school's web site, to a local government web site, and to another wiki, so a mix of primary and tertiary sources. Nothing in it indicates why it's notable, and absent reliable secondary sources better to redirect it until sources are found. --2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Please note: this is a PUBLIC SCHOOL, meaning it's affiliated to the local government. So the webpage on the Inner Mongolia government's website is the official recognition of the "key school" (notable) status. Liusine (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * redirect - clearly no indication of notability of this primary school. Even though the article incorrectly states that it is a high school, all 3 current references make clear that this is a middle school. Not nearly enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 11:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

See the first reference "12 key middle schools in Inner Mongolia became the excellent student base of Nankai University". The graduates directly go to Universities (e.g. a very notable univerity Nankai University). So this is a "high school". Please translate carefully before making inadequate judgements like the one above. Liusine (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * It's a secondary school rather than a primary school. I think the "middle school" comes from a mistranslation of 中学, which China uses for secondary/high schools. But it's a high school: in the logo at the top of most pages of the school's website it calls itself "HOHHOT NO. 2 HIGH SCHOOL".--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 (talk) 12:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@ 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 Agreed. It should be HOHHOT NO. 2 HIGH SCHOOL (the US naming convention). Initially it was written as "high school" on Wiki. But someone changed it... In China, 高级中学=senior middle school or high school; 初级中学=junior middle school. Liusine (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The sourcing in media is fairly bare, but there is enough academic research, combined with this article about the school being top 100 in China to meet WP:NSCHOOL:
 * Jumpytoo Talk 18:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Striked out the ranking part, see my comment later on. Jumpytoo Talk 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Jumpytoo Talk 18:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Striked out the ranking part, see my comment later on. Jumpytoo Talk 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Jumpytoo Talk 18:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Striked out the ranking part, see my comment later on. Jumpytoo Talk 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jumpytoo Thanks a lot for providing these secondary sources from academic research! They are reliable and independent.


 * Keep @ All others, reliable secondary sources have been found, thanks to @Jumpytoo's findings! Please come to update your previous votes and verify these sources using google translate or Chrome browser translate. To some editor like Kudpung, you can consult with some professor colleagues specialized in East Asian language/culture if you do not have accurate translations. Isn't it widely advocated to adopt Diversity and Inclusion practices in US universities (also some UK universities)? Hohhot No.2 is the top one in Inner Mongolia, which is a huge province in China with many ethic minorities. Liusine (talk) 01:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I cannot change my !vote as the reasons for it still apply. The above are not good references. The first e.g. is (according to Apple's translation tool) "Selection and Analysis of Greening Tree Species in the East Campus of Hohhot Second Middle School". I.e. it is an agricultural/horticultural study carried out at the school. But there is nothing special or remarkable about that. Studies often are done at schools, to engage the students, as students make good subjects (they don't need to be paid or recruited), or as staff are interested. Or all of the above. There's a small army of academic researchers who carry out such studies, touching pretty much every school at some point. I.e. they don't establish notability for me.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment The user:Liusine is misinformed (and very impolite). I am not a 'profressor in England', not do I hold any 'position' on Wikipedia. I was however, always a staunch advocate in keeping articles about high schools. Following years of wrangling, a community consensus decided that primary and junior secondary schools are not notable simply because they exist. And that's the 'position' I maintain. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Good to learn that you user:Kudpung are not a 'professor in England'. That makes you less authoritative :) Based on your judgements and comments, you sound like a senior gentlemen in UK, proud to include a UK top 100 school Hanley Castle High School while trying to delete a top 1 high school in Inner Mongolia, China. Do you have problems with Mongolians/Chinese or cannot admit to be simply xenophobic?? I am ASKING ANOTHER EDITOR TO HANDLE THIS DELETION PAGE AS Kudpung is BIASED AND IMPOLITE. Liusine (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@ 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 Hi, You clearly ignored the fact the Hohhot No.2 is a High School. Did you translate the main content of those references? Peer reviewed academic journal articles are reliable 2ndary sources. Liusine (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Kudpung, Hi, please stop posting on my personal pages. Please come over here and clarify your logic in the rebuttal. Plz stop using the power as an editor or show any judgments/biases. For example, you edited Hanley Castle High School which is a non-selective UK school. Sources claim that it is a top 100 UK school, while the sources I listed prove that Hohhot No.2 High School is top 100 high school in China. Since China has 20 times the population of UK, the Hanley Castle High School is about top 2000 high schools in China. Does that still sound notable to you? Do NOT challenge Chinese K12 education qualities.

Besides, the listed 2nary sources show that Hohhot No.2 Middle School has both junior and senior middle schools, and senior middle school=high school in China (the graduates directly go to colleges). Again, Kudpung intentionally ignored multiple evidences and do not even bother to translate the abstract/texts of the references... Liusine (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The full studies are behind a paywall so no, I had mostly or only the title to go on. And no, I am not Kudpung, and I ask you to withdraw that accusation and your attacks on him. Personal attacks are not constructive, and if kept up will likely see you blocked.--2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13 (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

HI @ 2A00:23C8:4583:9F01:D5B7:AB98:CEF7:8F13, your IP v6 address shows you are from London, England, similar to Kudpung's. I'm only pointing out this fact. Whatever your excuses for not looking further beyond the title is, the abstract (摘要) is directly below the title and is free. You need to Google translate that. Do not complain for foreign languages because if the source is in French, do you need to translate that? Books are not free either. Do they count as reliable sources? Liusine (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect Per the other people that have already recommended it. This clearly doesn't pass the bar required for schools of this type to be notable. Even with the new sources that have been found since the AfD was started. Which don't seem to be up to muster. For instance, the first one is an analysis of species of trees on the campus and I'd hardly call it in-depth or direct information about the school itself. Unless you want an article about trees, I guess. Also, the back and forth nonsense is a little disconcerting and doesn't speak well to either side of this. So better just to redirect it IMO then have an article about only extremely loosely related information. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Adamant1, did you check this news report? Liusine (talk) 17:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, Liusine. Yes I did. Unfortunately there isn't really anything in the notability guidelines stating that highly ranked organizations are notable because of it. So the fact that it's ranked number two on that list, whatever makes them an expert, doesn't really matter. Slightly off topic, but I think that's for the best. Since anyone can create a ranking system of the top schools and use whatever criteria they want for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment While after further review, I don't think the rankings are useful (can't find any proof its made by an authoritative source), I disagree on the other editors analysis of the academic sources I provided. Even though the primary subject of the research articles is for example the trees at the school, as per WP:GNG (the applicable guideline here as this is a public school): Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. For example, that article about trees has 138 words (when Google Translated) of the school's history in the abstract, which is absolutely enough for SIGCOV. I did some more digging and found additional sources which seem seem to be more directed on the school:
 * Jumpytoo Talk 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new references. Unfortunately I couldn't get them to load. Anyway, unless I'm wrong all of the references you have provided come from a single website/source. So they would only count as one reference. Which means we have a single good reference (in the ones that are combined) and one that is OK, but doesn't seem to be great. So we still aren't there yet IMO. Although I commend you for the effort though. I'm sure more can found, but preferably it should be from somewhere else then the other references and not a research paper. Unless it is actually published in a peer reviewed journal. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Jumpytoo Talk 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new references. Unfortunately I couldn't get them to load. Anyway, unless I'm wrong all of the references you have provided come from a single website/source. So they would only count as one reference. Which means we have a single good reference (in the ones that are combined) and one that is OK, but doesn't seem to be great. So we still aren't there yet IMO. Although I commend you for the effort though. I'm sure more can found, but preferably it should be from somewhere else then the other references and not a research paper. Unless it is actually published in a peer reviewed journal. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Jumpytoo Talk 19:45, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new references. Unfortunately I couldn't get them to load. Anyway, unless I'm wrong all of the references you have provided come from a single website/source. So they would only count as one reference. Which means we have a single good reference (in the ones that are combined) and one that is OK, but doesn't seem to be great. So we still aren't there yet IMO. Although I commend you for the effort though. I'm sure more can found, but preferably it should be from somewhere else then the other references and not a research paper. Unless it is actually published in a peer reviewed journal. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@@ Appreciate the new links. The CNKI abstract only show up on a cell phone browser (e.g. Safari on iPhone). For the CNKI articles, I download the CNKI手机知网 App from US Apple store, and log in as a guest (游客登录) to download the full text. It is free. I also share a Dropbox link for two journal articles PDF above (呼和浩特市第二中学简介; 呼和浩特市第二中学创建绿色学校工作纪实). One can use Google translate for images. Liusine (talk) 01:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the new references. Unfortunately I couldn't get them to load. Anyway, unless I'm wrong all of the references you have provided come from a single website/source. So they would only count as one reference. Which means we have a single good reference (in the ones that are combined) and one that is OK, but doesn't seem to be great. So we still aren't there yet IMO. Although I commend you for the effort though. I'm sure more can found, but preferably it should be from somewhere else then the other references and not a research paper. Unless it is actually published in a peer reviewed journal. As conference papers and dissertations have questionable reliability. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The new sources found by Jumpytoo are from different printed newspapers/journals. CNKI or CQVIP are online journal databases. If you check my Dropbox link for three articles PDF above (呼和浩特市第二中学简介; 呼和浩特市第二中学创建绿色学校工作纪实;呼和浩特市第二中学欢庆60华诞)  Liusine (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was looking at CNKI a minute ago. Which says it includes "journals, doctoral dissertations, masters' theses, proceedings, newspapers, yearbooks, statistical yearbooks, ebooks, patents and standards", not just journals. So the articles could potentially be any one of those. There's no way to tell from your Dropbox links. At least not that I can see. I can't read Chinese though, but I'd still need a definative answer that they are journal articles to give them a thumbs up. Since it's like a 1/9 chance that they are (I'm at least pretty sure the source about the tree species is not from a journal). That said, someone could probably at least make a weak keep argument at this point if nothing else. Adamant1 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, it is very easy to tell whether it is a journal or something else. Jumpytoo also listed journal name (for example, journal=内蒙古教育) in the references. The journal name is ALWAYS printed in the PDF file in Chinese. For master's thesis, the title and website will indicate that category (呼和浩特市第二中学学生信息素养的调查研究--《内蒙古师范大学》2007年硕士论文 means it is a master's thesis=硕士论文). If you open Jumpytoo's links in a cell phone browser (e.g. Safari on iPhone), the journal name and publishing date is also shown. Liusine (talk) 03:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Other editors whose opinions were based on expired early sources: please come here and update your votes considering the multiple new references from different newspapers/journals. If not, your votes will not count. Liusine (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure their votes will count anyway. They aren't voided just because someone finds a couple of new sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for revealing the dark side of Wiki's AfD. Liusine (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not really a "vote" anyway. 99% of the time if the rational someone gives is bunk the closing admin will just ignore it. Either that or list the AfD to get more opinions. Both are perfectly fine. Realistically it would be way to convoluted if a ton of people who have voted already had to cross out their votes and do the whole thing over again every time new sources come along. Especially for people who still agree with their original reasons. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.