Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xiamen International 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 of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xiamen International School

I nominated this page for speedy because it is merely an advertisement, but an anon reverted it. Rather than get into a revert war with an anon who seems to be bent on contributing to this article, I'm going to post this here.

• Keep Lots of good stuff, but it needs some selling taken out. Golfcam 23:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I've removed some of the marketing language and what is left is a well above average school article. Chance of deletion? Zero I'd say. Choalbaton 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Abstain. A lot of the text is unencyclopedic and needs to come out. -- Krash 00:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tried removing a lot of the uncyclopedic text, but the page wound up being about one line long. I posted as much on its talk page. Also, the anon that removed the speedy delete tag technically engaged in vandalism, though perhaps it was wrong of me to put the tag there in the first place. --DCrazy talk/contrib 02:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I've taken out some material. Maybe a couple more sentences could go, but it is full of solid information. The "one line" claim is ludicrous. It was certainly wrong of you to try to speedy delete this. Choalbaton 03:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Check the edit history and you'll see that there was virtually no information in the article when I posted the speedy delete. In its entirety, the article was approximately seven sentences long. --DCrazy talk/contrib 04:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
        • It was 355 words long, which is slightly longer than the average wikipedia article, and it was full of solid information. It is hard to believe that we are talking about the same article. Perhaps this is all some sort of joke on your part. Choalbaton 06:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Information, not words. The distinction is important. Nonetheless I will now agree that there is enough verifiable information to keep the article. --DCrazy talk/contrib 15:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all schools Jcuk 08:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep; it needs to be wikified however. -Zero^Talk 08:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per previously established consensus, but remove all unverified information. Reduce it to a one-sentence 'it exists' if necessary. Subject's websites are not reliable sources, no exemptions for kiddies. --Malthusian (talk) 10:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That's a ridiculously over the top interpretation of policy imo. We want as much true information in wikipedia as possible, and there is no reason to doubt the information about what courses are offered and the like. We are not engaged in a game the purpose of which is to provide as the maximum possible number of footnotes per paragraph. Good research techniques include knowing when to accept information, as well as when to dismiss it. CalJW 17:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, we want as much verifiable information as possible (WP:V and WP:NOR). Just cause it's true doesn't mean it belongs in Wikipedia. But now we're splitting hairs; I wish I could un-nominate this article. --DCrazy talk/contrib 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable and it should be wikified. --Terence Ong 13:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Schools are notable, per WP:SCH. "Advertizement" is no reason for speedy deletion. Stifle 16:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Hopefully the nominator will now understand that nominating schools is pointless. CalJW 17:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
• keep please this school is important Yuckfoo 01:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 05:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep this great article. If there are mistakes (in this case advertising) we can EDIT it..that's what makes wikipedia so great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fish4 (talk • contribs)
  • The above was unsigned and the poster's only contributions are the article itself and this AfD. Turnstep 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks very good in its current state. Nice work Choalbaton. - Turnstep 21:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. Precedent to keep schools such as this; however, it is unarguably not a good article, and could use some cleaning up and copyediting. -Rebelguys2 04:37, 19 January 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.