Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joy English School

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 to delete the article. Just move and overwrite the copyvio version. - Mailer Diablo 06:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joy English School

Now Talk:Joy English School/Temp.

public relations piece designed to promote a company Also see WP:CORP Wenzi 06:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. First Ghit is for wikipedia and the next few are job ads. Fails WP:CORP miserably. --Daniel Olsen 07:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with the nomination but am unhappy about Daniel Olsen's objection. If it's even half true that Joy school currently has approximately 10,000 students enrolled in various classes throughout Taiwan and China (as claimed by the article), then the company may well deserve an article. However, the article would be so unlike the existing one that the existing article can safely be scrapped. I'm unperturbed by the sheer lack of nature of the top [romanized] "Ghits"; I'd expect the company to be discussed in Chinese, and of course in hanzi rather than roman script. Unfortunately I have trouble manipulating hanzi and I can't read Chinese. A disinterested speaker of Chinese may later wish to create a neutral article about this outfit. -- Hoary 08:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC) .... revised (see below) 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Daniel Olsen made no mention of the number of hits. It is you who are arguing based upon counting hits. Daniel Olsen's argument was based upon what the located web pages actually contained. Counting Google hits is not research. Actually reading the web pages the Google locates is; and it appears that Daniel Olsen has been doing exactly that. Uncle G 11:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, good point. I was sleepy. But my larger point is, I think, intact. If this is an English-teaching company in Chinese-speaking nations, I see no particular reason why it should be described in roman script other than for potential teachers and among potential, actual, and ex teachers. It's not at all surprising that the top hits are job offers. I'm not knocking D.O.'s research, merely questioning the significance of his findings. And again, this does nothing to change my view that the article itself is horrible (quite aside from any copyright issues). -- Hoary 00:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and Cleanup — The "Joy English School" deserves a place on Wikipedia, just as many other schools have. The problem with this article is its tone - as noted by the nom, it reads like an advertisement - therefore I would reccommend the cleanup (perhaps rewrite) of the article to portray the group more as a school and less as a corporation. Also, independant, verifiable sources are needed drastically for the article to on wikipedia. I'm in the middle with my decision on this article, but as it is an article about a school - and the way it is written has probably contributed hugely to this AfD (the tone is like an advertisement), I'm leaning towards keep - with a huge cleanup. It's badly written, but the subject deserves a place on WP. Martinp23 11:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Copyvio: delete ASAP.
  Cleanup is too risky: too much of the text is copy-pasted from the Joy English School website. For example, compare the opening paragraph with this page, and the text under "Teachers", beginning with "In developing and writing the textbooks and other materials used within the schools", with this page. Every page of the Joy English School website bears an explicit copyright notice and "all rights reserved" statement. It is therefore illegal to keep this article. We must delete it, as quickly as possible, to avoid legal liability.
  Naturally, this would not prevent someone replacing it with an original article, if that could be done within the requirements of WP:V and so forth. — Haeleth Talk 12:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - copyvio pages should not be deleted through AfD - rather through Wikipedia:Copyright problems. From WP:COPY:

    If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page, along with the original source. If the author's permission is obtained later, the text can be restored.

    If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement, then the page should be listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems and the content of the page replaced by the standard notice which you can find there. If, after a week, the page still appears to be a copyright infringement, then it may be deleted following the procedures on the votes page.

  • See also Wikipedia:Copyright_problems#Instructions for instructions on marking copy-violations. Martinp23 13:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and stubify. On the face of it this school is perfectly notable. Once the copyvio process has cleaned it out it should be stubified so it can be redeveloped from scratch. BlueValour 18:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You assert that this school is notable, yet you do not state what notability criteria it satisfies. As such, that's an empty rationale. You can actually demonstrate that the school satisfies the WP:SCHOOL notability criteria by citing sources. Uncle G 10:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup — There are many schools that have Wikipedia articles, and so an article about a school might not necessarily mean it's a public relations piece, and can be notable. However, all the school articles are written from scratch and not copies of the school's website, and this article must follow the same rules. I suggest notifying the creator about Wikipedia policy and informing him on how to edit pages (I volunteer for this task if the article is not deleted). –- kungming·2 | ^(Talk·^Contact) 23:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You assert that this school "can be notable". Please actually demonstrate how. Please cite sources to show that the WP:SCHOOL criteria are satisfied. Uncle G 10:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Blue Valour and the arguments listed at User:Silensor/Schools. I will lend a hand with obviating the copyvio issue by working on a new article. Silensor 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • At least three of those arguments are fundamentally wrong, being based upon erroneous perceptions of why we include or exclude other articles and an erroneous conflation of notability with personal importance to Wikipedia editors. We don't exclude or include articles based upon how important they are to individual Wikipedia editors. The WP:SCHOOL criteria, and many of our other notability criteria, are based solidly upon sources. Uncle G 10:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment As copyright violation, the old text has to go via that route. The current draft at the temp page does not look promising. Claims that the school was founded in 1981 yet is one of the oldest schools on the island of Taiwan. Umm, where did people go to school 1) prior to the separation from mainland China and 2) in the two generations between that separation and 1981? Doesn't pass the sniff test for truthfulness. GRBerry 01:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course, but you are overlooking a small yet important distinction. It doesn't say it is the oldest school, it says it is the oldest English school. Silensor 06:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • And the only sources that it uses are the school's own web pages. Subjects' own web pages are not reliable sources, not least because of academic boosterism in the case of schools. (The abovementioned statement could well be the school's own academic boosterism, for example.) To satisfy either WP:CORP or WP:SCHOOL, we need non-trivial published works from sources other than the school itself. Autobiographies do not satisfy the criteria. Uncle G 10:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with Uncle G. The text needs to go because it does not satisfy either WP:CORP or WP:SCHOOL. Copyvio or not, the text needs to be replaced. Also, how can it be verified that it is the oldest "English" school ? wenzi 21:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • No one is arguing that the old copyvio text should not be removed. What this article needs is some additional outside sources. That shouldn't be too difficult to locate for a school franchise with more than 212 locations, although it would be helpful if someone fluent in Chinese would assist with that. Silensor 23:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. Here is an interesting article which appeared in the Taipei Times: [1] [2] Silensor 23:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cedars 10:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Silensor. --Myles Long 23:32, 25 August 2006 (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.