Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ushin Language Institute


 * 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   delete. Non notable per consensus Philg88 ♦talk 08:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Ushin Language Institute

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable English language center, not a degree granting school. As I understand it, such organizations come under speedy A7, but it was declined.  DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Unsigned comment from WP:SPA page creator After having read through the guidelines, I see no obvious, immediate or relevant reason for this page to be deleted, especially when considering the many other private education institutes of its kind exist on Wiki already. This is especially true when considering that ULI has an arrangement with ZISU to help international students pass the Chinese language test - HSK (as mentioned in the article).A link will shortly be forthcoming regarding this.ate

Secondly, as also mentioned within the article, ULI is not only an English language centre, but also teaches other languages (as stated above).

In relation to 'notability', I would suggest that the association with ZISU as their central language test preparation centre to be significant, and thus, 'notable' (although, obviously, this word is fairly subjective).

I think the fact that the speedy deletion under A7 has been declined would be a good indicator that this page ought to stay (given the logic behind the deletion requests is the same). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine309 (talk • contribs) 10:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Fairly typical language cram school. After reading through the article and knowing our guidelines I cannot see how this article even remotely meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG, besides which, being basically a promo for a run-of-the-mill commercial language school it's probably a G11 CSD candidate for advertising or using Wikipedia as a listing site. It's certainly neither a mainstream high school or degree awarding institution that might, under certain conditions being met, accord it some notability. Riding on the back of  unsourced informal university recognition does not in any way assert notability here. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (cackle)  @ 20:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (spiel)  @ 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  Rcsprinter123     (collogue)  @ 20:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * keep ULI is not a typical language school. It's also the designated translation partner for Qiusuo Documentary channel, which is a joint venture of Discovery channel and Wasu Digital TV (aka, Wasu Media group) in China. link and some references added at the end. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine309 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * keep Besides, ULI's partner university ZISU is not "an unsourced informal university". First of all, provincial government of Zhejiang just invested 1.5 billion RMB into the development of this university last year, which indicates the province's determination to develop ZISU; secondly, ZISU is the earliest university in Zhejiang province to develop international studies. The wikipedia page of ZISU has not been updated for a long while but it doesn't mean ZISU is an unsourced informal university. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine309 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Striking duplicate !vote. You're only allowed to !vote once, but can comment as much as you wish. Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ooops. didn't know the rule. I thought it should be one reason for one vote. sorryJasmine309 (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine309 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Kudpung's analysys. Pax 07:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, check "The Chinese Language Institute", pretty much the same school structure. If that institute can exsit, this should also be.Lukasonny (talk) 07:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As you are a new user, it is worth reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. AllyD (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Not only a new user, but one with currently TWO total contributions, both at AFD. Special:Contributions/Lukasonny Will consider reporting as WP:sock puppet.  Gaff (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: A commercial operation which provides services to several organisations does not inherit notability from them. One of the existing references does not appear to cover the subject of the article, and I am seeing no evidence that would indicate WP:CORPDEPTH notability (though open to changing that opinion if someone identifies such in Chinese language sources). AllyD (talk) 08:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * hello. Lanex program is a non-profitable program as stated in the article, and will soon have a reference from German media as it's an on-going program.(A link to that will soon appear at the end of this month). One of the link directs to the launch of Qiusuo channel as it doesnt have a page on wiki, the reference is given to prove that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine309 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read: CRYSTALBALL, then consider the relevance of what might happen later this year... Gaff (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * hello, this is getting ridiculous. if you dont believe an on-going program, there's still no need to verbally 'attack' an institution with biased comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmine309 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 9 January 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.