Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seiha English Academy


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 06:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Seiha English Academy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Google search puts the notability of this school in question, because the only non-primary sources I could find are self-published. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentative delete Oricon customer satisfaction survey ranked this place at 3rd among other toddler English learning institutes, but that's the only one more independent source and definitely not enough.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 11:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep It is a major player in the kids market, but the article does need outside sources.182.250.240.89 (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 05:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep I believe that references will be difficult for that average wikipedian to manage, because they're mostly going to be in Japanese. That said, difficulty is not a reason to delete.  This is clearly a large scale private school network.  Individual local schools might not merit an article, but 400 schools under one name?  That surely should. The article, as it stands, is pretty barebones and not great, but that just means it needs improvement. Fieari (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sing! 19:47, 19 February 2015 (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.