Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tai Po Sam Yuk Secondary 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tai Po Sam Yuk Secondary School

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There doesn't seem to anything notable about this school. All of the references in the article except for one are primary and nothing that would establish the schools notability comes up in a search about it. Plus, the creator and main editor of the article clearly has a COI. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are sources I found that discuss the subject:
1. "大埔三育中學" (PDF). Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2009-03-20. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
2. Poon, Shuk Wah (2008). "大埔教育:從鄉村師範的建立到鄉村學校的消失" [Education in Tai Po: From the Founding of Rural Normal School to the Demise of Village Schools] (in Chinese). Lingnan University. p. 217. Archived from the original on 2018-11-02. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
3. "34%直資中學加費匯知最勁貴四成". Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2014-04-29. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
4. CK LI (2020-05-12). Sheun, Martin (ed.). "【家長難捱】22所直資校疫市申加費　大埔三育加幅達18.6%". Orange News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
5. "三育中學轉直資校". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-12-03. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
There is sufficient coverage in these sources about the school's history and activities to satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 09:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: You should know by now since you've been told multiple times by pretty much everyone that primary sources don't work for notability. Which all but of one of those are. And the last source doesn't even exist to figure out if it is or not. At this point it's extremely wrong of you to continuing posting sources you know full well don't pass WP:GNG and to vote keep based on them. Especially when you have been told repeatedly to stop doing it. Either post sources that actually work for notability or don't post at all, but what your doing is getting pretty tiring and you should stop doing it. Otherwise, I'm going to report you to the admin noticeboard. If you want articles to be kept, get them kept the correct way. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these sources are primary sources but am open to striking sources from the list if it is demonstrated that any of them are primary sources. If you think that this AfD contribution is disruptive, I recommend that you post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to receive input from the community about whether they agree.

Cunard (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source comes from ktsps.edu.hk/ which is either their website which would be primary or one closely associated with them and is therefore WP:OR, The second one is an academic paper and therefore definitely WP:OR, and the third isn't even about them and they are only mentioned briefly in passing. Same goes for the forth one, and like Whereas, the fifth is from their own newsletter so 100% it's primary. Also, the topics covered in the sources are extremely trivial anyway. All schools have tuition hikes and there's nothing notable about it. Which is why there's no non-primary sources covering it. You really should have checked the sources yourself. As I've said before, it's not on other AfD participants to vet your sources. I'm not going to report you if your willing to correct yourself and stop doing it, but it's been a repeated thing. It's not difficult to review sources before you post them to make sure they are usable. So do it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the sources before posting them and stand by my posting of them. The first source is a copy of a Ming Pao article. The second source is from an academic paper. Wikipedia:No original research says Wikipedia editors may not perform original research. Wikipedia:No original research does not say that Wikipedia editors cannot use reliable sources that perform the original research. The third and fourth sources each provide a paragraph of coverage that explains why the school increased tuition by such a large amount. These two sources help with Wikipedia:Verifiability more than they help with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The fifth source is independent coverage in Apple Daily.

Cunard (talk) 04:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you would. I didn't expect you to follow through on doing the proper thing. Anyway, original research in Wikipedia isn't just confined to editors. It also covers things like academic research papers and autobiographies. That's why the whole secondary source things exists in the first place and also why WP:PRIMARY, which is in Wikipedia:No original research, says "a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." The same goes for anything else written for academic purposes. Since they are original research and not a secondary synthesis of the data. Which is what the notability guidelines requires. Importantly, while primary sources are fine for adding basic information to articles, they are don't work for establishing notability. Just like it's OK to cite a tweet with basic information in an article, but it's not OK to use one as a source in an AfD. What can be in an article and what establish notability are two different standards. Also, if the last two sources just help with verifiability then they should be left out. Since that isn't what we are trying to establish here. Two trivial non-reliable sources verifying each other are still two trivial non-reliable sources. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, for exactly what I was talking about see WP:FORUM. "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." --Adamant1 (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "your results" and "your work" referenced in WP:FORUM refers to the work of Wikipedia editors. It does not refer to the research of someone like Shuk Wah Poon, the author of the Lingnan University-published book chapter.

WP:FORUM mentions "other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications". "Other venues" include Shuk Wah Poon's Lingnan University-published book chapter. Cunard (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mine and other peoples that why it says "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc." And the talks about someone posting their own research. Original ideas are still original research if they are mine or not. I can't post my friends thoughts on an idea anymore then I can my own. Or visa versa by having them post my original ideas just because they aren't me. That's why you need it to be published in secondary reliable sources in the first place. Otherwise, there would be zero reason reason for it and people could generate their notability by hiring PR firms to write about them and crap. A PR piece isn't "the person", but it's still not reliable because it's original research. Lingnan University-published book chapter isn't "Other venues" because it's the college he was attending and it was published through them as part of him writing it. Generally, "other venues" do not include the place you attend who has a vested interested in and publishes your work. Like if if I attend Standford, while a PhD thesis while going there, and they publish it, that's not "other venues" and it is exactly what the article is doing. Otherwise, it would have to be in a third party peer reviewed journal or something.

Also, WP:SCHOLARSHIP says "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." And also "dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." So, you'd have to prove that 1. Lingnan University is a well-regarded press and that what they publish is vetted first 2. Show that the specific book or article has had significant scholarly influence. Neither of which you can do and still wouldn't get around the original research thing anyway even if you could. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some source listed above are clearly not primary source (some are newspaper but for "routine" coverage of school fee and change from one government subsidy scheme to another ("直接資助")). Is it in-depth source is another thing. While secondary school latest criteria is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Schools. I would suggest to create a list of secondary school in Tai Po District instead as number of secondary school in the district are relatively static. Matthew hk (talk) 14:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think more third party analisation of Cunard's sources is required before this discussion should be closed either way. Cheers! -- puddleglum^2.0 20:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- puddleglum^2.0 20:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are not enough secondary sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.