Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tung Wah Group of Hospitals S. C. Gaw Memorial 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. North America1000 17:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Tung Wah Group of Hospitals S. C. Gaw Memorial College

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article about a grammar school is blatantly promotional. It does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion. Even looking back at earlier non-promotional versions of the article, it has never had any references that aren't the school's own website. Without independent reliable sources, there is no evidence of notability. Deli nk (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)


 * delete does not meet notability requirements.Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google search on "SC Gaw" and Chinese name "吳祥川"  gives over ten pages of references, large numbers of external sources on the subject. Please do some research and have more knowledge on the subject on the web if you question the "notability" of the subject and submit the request of Afd.  I contribute more time on other wikipedia projects and is not active for English Wikipedia for a long time. The number of active Hongkong wikipedians in English Wikipedia is deserting for a long time and may not have any good improvement on many subjects of Hong Kong.  Anyway, there is no lack of external source for the notability requirement. I have revert the article to earlier revision and would spend some time to improve it. Afd is the last resort in Wikipedia, right? &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 06:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I wonder there are many editors doing more harm than good to the Wikipedia community. They never think of improving articles but keep finding articles to delete without any research. We all know that not every part of the world are native in English, many local sources and topics are never go into English Wikipedia. Keeping deleting these articles not only discourages local wikipedians, eliminating local Wikipedian community, it also weakening the balance and the varieties of the topics in English Wikipedia. It is very hard to writing on local topics. It is even harder to keep the local topics. It is so disguising to fight against so many Afd. &mdash; HenryLi (Talk) 09:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, more. Some editors do not understand well on the issues of notability. According to notability guidelines, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search."


 * Keep. There's sufficient notability as established by mentions in independent, reliable sources; and sufficiently verifiable information to make the inclusion of an article viable. The current state of the article can be improved but I think readers are still better off with this article as it is than without it. Deryck C. 12:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The deletion proposal is disruptive and this article can be improved. I suggest the proposer to spend time studying the deletion guidelines before proposing additional deletions. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * "This article about a grammar school is blatantly promotional." => This can be fixed, not a reason for deleting the article
 * "It does not appear to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion." => Why not?
 * "Even looking back at earlier non-promotional versions of the article, it has never had any references that aren't the school's own website." => It doesn't mean that such references don't exist elsewhere
 * "Without independent reliable sources, there is no evidence of notability." => What about looking for such evidence, rather that suggesting a deletion?
 * The article at the time of nomination was totally unacceptable for Wikipedia. With the article now trimmed of its promotional content and having some sources beyond its own website, I'm still not sure about this.  I realize that standards get relaxed for schools, but the sources are mainly routine coverage (directory listings, stories about several students that had notably good test results or a "Latin dancer of the college won some good prizes").   An article about a company with these types of sources and content could easily get unanimous deletes  on WP:CORPDEPTH grounds.  Gnome de plume (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 27 September 2017 (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.