Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenfu Tea College


 * 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. NW ( Talk ) 02:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tenfu Tea College

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Advertising. No indication of significance or notability. The college's website doesn't even appear to have an English language information page. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under criterion G11. Dalekusa (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I must take issue with the nomination rationale. Why should we expect a Chinese college to have a web page in any non-Chinese language? Should be delete articles about colleges in anglophone countries that don't have web pages in Chinese? The only bits of the artice that could be said to be promotional were the word "devoted" and the contact information, which I have removed. Here's one reliable source in English - let's see if anyone can find any more in Chinese. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was only one part of it, and the reason is that the English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources. Tenfu Tea College gets only about 1000 Google hits, and is apparently a training arm of Tenfu Tea Company (according to the article you found), which we don't have an article on.  I don't see much in the way of notability so far.  Exploding Boy (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The language of sources has no bearing on the suitability of a subject for an article. The preference for English language sources is part of verifiability policy which doesn't apply "where an English equivalent is not available". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's another story in English here, a different romanization turns up a few local Xiamen sources in English, and there are plenty of gnews and general google hits in Chinese. This story in particular, saying it's the first college in China to be allowed to recruit students directly from private colleges in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, suggests some wider importance in recent East Asian educational history. If all high schools are notable, this certainly is. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is clearly an ad. The creator User:Icetea8 is a teacher/trainer at the school! (WP:CONFLICT) And 99% of Paularblaster's Chinese Google Hits are ads. According to those Chinese Information, the school is indeed founded by the company and the "students" can go to "intern" at the company and receive job placements after they "graduate." Per WP:ADVERT & WP:CONFLICT, delete. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even with 99% of hits being advertising, there seems to me to be enough grain in amongst the chaff to justify a stub on this institution - or have I missed something about the COI policy that would override the existence of RS? (That's a serious question - I'm no policy expert; if there is I'll withdraw my "keep") --Paularblaster (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If 99% of hits are advertising, that certainly suggests that the place isn't notable, and that there aren't sufficient reliable sources about it to support an article, especially given we don't have an article about the parent company. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A reliable source is a reliable source, regardless of however many unreliable sources there might be about. On a point of information, we do have an article on the parent company, at Ten Ren Tea. It's pretty major. --Paularblaster (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Paularblaster's discovery of more reliable sources. If this is "clearly an ad" then where are the invitations for students to apply to this college, or the claims that this is better than any competitor? What this "clearly" is is a factual description of the subject. What on earth does the claim that students can go to intern at the company and receive job placements after they graduate have to do with the subject's suitability for an encyclopedia article? Just putting words in scare quotes doesn't demonstrate anything. Surely all colleges, and in particular vocational colleges, help students with job placements, but how does that make them unnotable? And, just for completeness, Paularblaster is perfectly correct that it doesn't matter how many advertising sources can be found as long as enough non-advertising sources exist to pass the notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, then please explain to me since when ad hits = WP:N? Since when WP:CONFLICT can be ignored?! I standby my statement & you don't need to be an article critic here, picking out how I write my stuff. In fact, I don't care what you think. Let's hear what you say about those 2 points first. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that ad hits = WP:N. I said that we should ignore the ad hits when evaluating notability, and base our judgement on the non-advertising sources. As regards WP:CONFLICT, it is not by itself a reason for deleting articles written by people with a conflict of interest, but a reason to edit articles to ensure neutrality, as I have done with this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2009 (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.