Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liaoyang Professional College of Technology

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, with no credible third-party sources presented, or any other attempt to address the reasons for deletion (specifically failure to meet WP:SCHOOL or any other sensible critierion for notability). Only real arguments for keeping presented are precedent (which does not exist on Wikipedia) and the fallacious WP:INN. AfD is not a vote. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liaoyang Professional College of Technology

Liaoyang Professional College of Technology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Verifiability, nothing on Google. AfD instead of prod to ensure lack of systemic bias. - crz crztalk 15:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletions. - crz crztalk 15:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of meeting Wikipedia:Schools can be verified. No assertion of such in the article. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In fact, it might be speediable as db:attack. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 15:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Criticism is allowed, Mike. - crz crztalk 15:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    • {{db-atk}} specifies that the article exists primarily to disparage its subject. This doesn't seem to (though phrases like Some teachers have no confidence in their English skills; others are competent and A percentage of the students have noticeable learning difficulties look perilously like POV without sources). 'Keep and cleanup. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep and cleanup. Verifiability is an issue, but it seems clear that this college does exist: see this official Min. of Ed. list (where its name is given as "Liaoyang Vocational College of Technology"). Cannot find a website for the school, but my Chinese net skills are nil. -- Visviva 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I can assure you that in the U.S. there are Ivy League schools and other leading universities charging $40,000 a year in tuition with very competitive admissions, where the technical classes are largely taught by grad students and professors who can barely speak English (although many of them have native fluency in Japanese, Chinese, or Korean). I know U.S. college graduates who went to China for a few years to make a good salary as English teachers. As for the school being real, nothing in the article sounds at all surprising. It is up to the editor creating the article to find a supporting citation. I could find no mention of a college in the town, but it is a center of the petrochemical industry and has seen widespread labor unrest for several years. Edison 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As we do with all post-secondary institutions. Lack of Google hits for a non-western institution is not uncommon and shouldn't be a reason to delete. -- Necrothesp 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Question Has anyone done a google search in chinese? JoshuaZ 07:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per necro (w/ cleanup, poss. move per visviva.) is nommination just parochialism? the correct tag would be {{references|article}} & the relevant cleanups, no? → bsnowball 09:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The article was sequentially speedied and prodded on notability by two separate editors. Suspecting that the thing is notable if real, but not being able to find it on Google, and not knowing a lick of Chinese, I figured to bring it here, so you guys can set me straight. I have not voted delete. I have absolutely no idea why I am being called names over here! Should I rather have let it sit around with a prod tag to be deleted - or deprodded it and left it unimproved? - crz crztalk 11:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
    • apol if that was too harsh. my point is: is afd the place to ask for improvements? what's wrong with deprodding, taging as relevant & attempting to refer to editors with relevant knowledge? (on the last i added china stub) esp. as, i believe, necro's correct about post-secondary? → bsnowball 12:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
      • If the matter had concerned tone and expansion or whatever, that would have been the course. But verifiability is the touchstone of a Wikipedia article, and I couldn't find any, so we had to have this AfD in order to establish it. - crz crztalk 12:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

from the top of the afd page: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." this is clearly aplies to a 2 day old stub without references, what u are saying wld surely only apply after weeks → bsnowball 15:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)