Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/School of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University


 * 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 no consensus. Sourcing quality questions remain, but there isn't going to be a consensus to delete this article. Star  Mississippi  17:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

School of Life Sciences, Lanzhou University

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

A general department of Lanzhou University that does not itself meet the criteria of WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG should have a separate department page.. I redirected it to the university then, PROD but the creator of the page refused both times, so the AfD is the only option. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools,  and China. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 05:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Lanzhou University - The subject is not notable on its own, failing GNG & NSCHOOL, but a redirect could be useful here. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 13:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changed to keep per Mucube below. The ⬡ Bestagon T / C 06:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting. I will say that in my time at AFD, I have rarely seen articles on departments or schools of universities kept unless they have sources demonstrating GNG. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Just a simple Google and Google Scholar search in Chinese found so many sources. (most of the sources I am listing here are academic papers I found on Google Scholar) Also, the article on Baidu Baike is rather substantial. Mucube (talk • contribs) 00:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The subject is Organization not academic person that's why it needs independent and secondary sources to meet the guidelines of SCHOOL and GNG. Your references are unreliable and primary, mostly discussing the individual's research work not the subject itself. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 3 of the 4 references are academic papers, which are reliable. All of the sources discuss the school as a whole or some particular aspect of it. They don't discuss individual research. and  are written by people from the university, but  (the author 李传辉 has no association with the university) and  are independent, which should be enough for notability. Mucube (talk • contribs) 23:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mucube This 1, 2 is primary and connected to the subject. This, this and this are also primary and unreliable sources (user generated research work cum directory). On the other hand, the article's page is also full of primary references. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to use Baidu Baike as a source. The CNKI link isn't user-generated, CNKI is a reputable journal search database in China. Mucube (talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: per WP:NEXIST and Mucube's analysis.  –DMartin  06:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.