Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EasyMandarin

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. Everybody agrees except for a wall-of-texting, likely WP:COI, WP:SPA. Sandstein 19:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

EasyMandarin

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

EasyMandarin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This appears to be an unremarkable language school and the article makes no claims to notability. It is clearly a business, rather than a public educational establishment, and should therefore meet WP:NCORP, which it fails to do.

While fixable, the content appears to me to be promotional, e.g. by listing the days and times of classes. Both references provided are dead links. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:57, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete unremarkable language school. Missing all sorts of secondary sources that would indicate importance. I've scrubbed out the specific courses and rewrote that paragraph. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Editors have reverted by edits. So I have tagged this as advertising, to deal with verbiage like "Classes meet two weekday evenings from 7pm to 9pm at the Jing'an Temple campus. New courses start monthly" and "EasyMandarin is located at 172 Yuyuan Road, Suite 1501 (near Wanhangdu Road) in Shanghai, China. The school is located next to Jing'an Temple metro station found on Shanghai Metro Line 2 and Shanghai Metro Line 7." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Striking vote for now given that citations have been provided independent sources Language magazine, The Beijinger and Time Out Shanghai. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Keep Reference to top publication (Time Out Magazine) praising the school has been added (to show notability) and dead links have been removed. Dead links updated using Wayback Machine archive. This article has been included since 2010 and when the article was created the debate already took place whether it is a school or a organization. Wikipedia administrators have already agreed that it is a school and thus allowed publication. Removed advertising verbiage as noted by editor, AngusWOOF. Parkertony (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

AngusWOOF Thank you for your feedback. I have since edited the page based on your feedback. I only left the part "The school is located next to Jing'an Temple metro station found on Shanghai Metro Line 2 and Shanghai Metro Line 7" since this is a local landmark and is related and relevant to this article, and I do not believe it is advertising verbiage. I hope you will reconsider and help remove this pages "marked for deletion" status. Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Parkertony Can you find another publication that discusses the school? Time Out can be one, but really need another for the multiple sources in order for it to meet WP:GNG AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

AngusWOOF Yes, there are several others. This link is for The Beijinger (a very popular online publication) talking about the school - https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2016/06/24/see-how-your-mandarin-measures-these-5-digital-proficiency-tests. Will find more and add to the page in the upcoming days. Unfortunately the Wikipedia page was not updated in a long time and the previous reference links were dead - thank you for pointing that out. Could you please kindly remove the "written like advertisement" template from the page? Thank you:)Parkertony (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It still looks like a brochure though with the course titles being bolded. Did you see the version I rewrote? https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EasyMandarin&type=revision&diff=859372215&oldid=859371709 That would have satisfied the advertising tone. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:26, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

You will need an article that has significant coverage like this one for Victoria Shanghai Academy from South China Morning Post [1] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The Beijinger is a Listings magazine so not sure how reliable it is for being independent of the advertisers they list. Could someone look up the article and check whether it has significant coverage on the school? Links are timing out for me. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Links now work. Striking previous comment. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:27, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Also potential confusion with Easy Mandarin UK in Belgravia [2] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

AngusWOOF I re-implemented your edit as you requested and agree that it removes the advertising tone and looks less brochure like. Could you please kindly remove the "written like advertisement" banner if okay with you? Thank you. I'll fix the dead link soon with Wayback Machine. Parkertony (talk) 05:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

I will add more notable references for the page after the weekend in the upcoming days. I will also re-publish some of the dead reference links that I found on Wayback Machine. Could someone please advise on best practices using Wayback Machine archived reference links? Parkertony (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)Parkertony (talk) 05:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Parkertony For the wayback ones, you can post the bare links here and in the article, and we can convert them to the archive citation format later. Right now you need to provide more RS citations to keep the article around. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:24, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

AngusWOOFAdded back dead link reference to comprehensive interview with school founder by radio86.com (radio86.com was acquired by https://gbtimes.com/). This is significant school coverage; however, it is in the Danish language (audio is in English). Could you please help convert for archive citation format? Thank you. Dead link is http://dk.radio86.com/livsstil-i-kina/6354/laer-kinesisk-i-shanghai , Wayback archive with interview audio can be found with the following link: https://web.archive.org/web/20120313001140/http://dk.radio86.com/livsstil/laer-kinesisk-i-shanghai.Parkertony (talk) 06:49, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Added StudyTravel Magazine reference. It loads as a Microsoft Azure PDF. Not sure how to cite properly, but would look like this: Hancox, Nicola (January 2018). "China" (PDF) StudyTravel Magazine p. 50-51 Retrieved 17 September 2018. Parkertony (talk) 10:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I've expanded the citations, yes, that's close enough. Curb Safe Charmer do you have any concerns on the magazine sources added? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpgjhpjm 01:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

AngusWOOF It appears that Curb_Safe_Charmer is on holiday as written on his user page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Curb_Safe_Charmer. Would you consider a "keep" vote in order to reach a consensus? Or, if other editors are interested, please chime in. When Curb_Safe_Charmer added this AfD he said it was "fixable", and I do believe his issues were addressed - removed promotional verbiage, currently appears to meet WP:GNG by restoring dead link citations and adding 3 new citations. Thank you.Parkertony (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete I would tag this as G11 in it's current state. I am not convinced on it's notability and think it fails WP:NCORP. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Frayae Could you please provide examples of why you would tag this as G11? What is not written in the neutral tone? WP:G11 states that it is better to replace content with text written from a neutral point of view than to delete the article. Why are you not convinced of notability? It has 5 references, including industry magazines and one from a well-known publisher, Time Out Magazine.Parkertony (talk) 12:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The entire article including the title is advertorial. If you replace the entire article then I may reconsider. Thanks. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The AfD section is meant for discussion purposes so editors can come to a consensus conclusion about whether or not to delete an article. Details do matter here and it would really be beneficial to editors and administrators if you can expand on your view that the article is not written in a neutral tone. Could you please provide some examples? Additionally, how do you conclude that the title, the actual name of the school, is advertorial? Requesting to replace the entire article is not constructive. Could other editors please provide input? Parkertony (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

It is entirely accurate. Your replacement article is at User:Frayae/sandbox/Easy Mandarin Chinese School. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The most significant difference in your replacement article appears to be the removal of the "overview" and "location/transportion" sections. Do you believe these sections are not written in a neutral tone? Please advise. I think the article would be better to keep those sections in order to provide readers with relevant content related to the organization. Perhaps we can work together to improve the original article rather than gutting it entirely. Appreciate your help and thank you for your input. Parkertony (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

The location is noteworthy because Jingan Temple is a landmark.Parkertony (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Frayae I have an idea. Would you be okay keeping the original article if, instead of replacing with a new article called "Easy Mandarin Chinese School", we replace the original article content mentions of EasyMandarin Chinese School with just "EasyMandarin". We would take off the words "Chinese School" from the name for consistency with the title like the replacement article you prepared. The first line would read "EasyMandarin (simplified Chinese: 易在汉语; pinyin: Yì zài hànyǔ), also known as "Easy Mandarin", is a language school located in Shanghai, China." If I make this change and include all of your changes to the wording in the first section, would you be more comfortable with it? I want to run this by you before I make the edits. Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 16:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Frayae Me again. Would really appreciate if you can help salvage the article. I submitted this article as a college assignment years ago after attending the school's summer program, and I made every effort to abide by the rules of Wikipedia - particularly to keep the neutral tone and not be promotional. I really don't want to see my one contribution to Wikipedia get deleted. Other editors have already made what I believe to be significant changes to the article in order to meet WP:NCORP. If you see any other changes or deletions that could help, would you please edit the article directly? Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 03:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Parkertony: Unfortunately the subject does not meet WP:NCORP, the only way to improve this is to add more reliable in-depth sources. The draft I created was simply an example on how to deal with the promotional content and in no way helps salvage the article. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Frayae I see that you recently edited the article Hutong_School which I believe is a very similar subject with very similar references. If EasyMandarin article provides company history and more content (partners, etc) taken directly from the subject's own website just like the Hutong_School article, would you find that more acceptable? Really appreciate your feedback. Thank youParkertony (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That would not help. The article on Hutong School is not a good example of what is acceptable. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• DELETE - fails WP:NCORP. The article largely relies on reviews from Time Out Shanghai and The Beijinger. However, reviews in local newspapers do not constitute in-depth coverage. Many restaurants and other businesses are reviewed in major newspapers (just read the local sections of the New York Times or Washington Post), but that does not make them notable. -Zanhe (talk) 06:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Zanhe The Beijinger reference is not a review. It is a reference to the school's online language proficiency tests. The article has 5 references. The two that you mentioned are more well-known, while the others are industry magazines as well as a news organization that covers China - GBTimes. Coverage is also fairly significant in the following reference http://web.archive.org/web/20110814181711/http://dk.radio86.com/livsstil-i-kina/6354/laer-kinesisk-i-shanghai Parkertony (talk) 07:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

See Hutong_School. This article has similar content and references.Parkertony (talk) 07:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Zanhe Again, The Beijinger reference is not a "review" as you wrote above. Have you actually viewed the references for this article? Kindly asking for you to provide more relevant and preferably actionable information so we can fix the article. Parkertony (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

See The Beijinger reference here - https://www.thebeijinger.com/blog/2016/06/24/see-how-your-mandarin-measures-these-5-digital-proficiency-testsParkertony (talk) 02:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

The Beijinger reference is basically a review of its website service. -Zanhe (talk) 06:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

ZanheThat is one way to look at it. In any case, reviews from mainstream local media establishes notability. Do you not agree?

"In-depth" coverage can be found in the industry magazine references provided. Did you look at the other references in this article?

Do you have any suggestions on fixing the article?Parkertony (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete looks like it fails WP:NCORP to me. desmay (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Desmay What aspect of the article do you believe appears to fail WP:NCORP? Could you please provide examples? The article has been edited quite a bit since the proposal for deletion, and several edits were specifically made to address the issues raised regarding NCORP.

Did you look at the article Hutong_School? This active article has similar content and references. Parkertony (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

EDITORS PLEASE READ: After editor Frayae voted to delete the article in this AfD (please see above), she later edited a similar organization -Hutong School. I then asked her if she would be satisfied if this article would be edited to a similar tone and content as that article (which mainly references it's own website) and her reply was “The article on Hutong School is not a good example of what is acceptable”. I then wondered why she would not tag an “unacceptable” article for AfD when she is a very active editor on Wikipedia (with hundreds of edits per day). This made me think what is going on here - why is the article in this AfD being singled out? I decided to do more research. Upon further investigating, there is a case to be made that the article EasyMandarin is written similar to (or better than) nearly ALL private schools and (small) public school articles on Wikipedia with regards to WP:NCORP. In my estimations, I would say around 80% to 90% of the articles on private and (small) public schools are written in a less acceptable way than the article being discussed in this AfD. Please see for yourself – you can find most schools listed by year in “Category:Educational institutions established in 20XX”.

Please see (random selection of 30 articles):

Cairo English School

Fuzhou Sanmu Middle School

Lu-Yu Tea Culture Institute

Nord Anglia Chinese International School

American International School of Guangzhou

AMC Dental College

Caritas Academy

Frida High School

Skylace

Draft:Silk Mandarin

Abbotsford Virtual School

Xiwai International School

American Sports University

The SMIC Private School

Hallmark World School

Yew Wah School of Shanghai

Daystar Academy

Petchey Academy

J.P. World School

Mountain View Academy

Pritzker College Prep

Seongnam Foreign Language High school

Tula’s Institute

Leopold Mozart Centre

Acropolis Technical Campus

Gary Comer College Prep

Accrington Academy

A. P. Møller School

Ark Academy

Affinity Business School

While the article for EasyMandarin has what I believe to be some reliable third party references with significant coverage and there is an argument to be made (that I personally believe) for WP:GNG, nearly all of the schools in this list make no claim for notability and most only reference their own website (no 3rd party references). It seems like editors are being a little strict with the article being discussed in this AfD. I hope some editors will be fair and reconsider their vote or other, more lenient editors will chime in. Parkertony (talk) 13:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I think there is history to this, I haven't read all the related history but look at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which suggests that Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is the correct guideline. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:53, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If those schools are notable but have poor sources, tag them for {{refimprove}} and {{primary sources}}. If you're unsure about their notability, tag them for {{notability}}. You could also bring up a cleanup request at WP:SCHOOLS. Use AFD only for the cases where there's no hope to establish notability after exhaustive searches. But they don't need to be discussed in this thread. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

AngusWOOF Frayae -- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS guidance states:

In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.

My argument to keep the article in this AfD is not that it should get a free pass, but rather that in comparison to the large majority (I believe to be around 80-90%) of private and (small) public school articles on Wikipedia, this article is more acceptable with regards to Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or WP:NCORP. Notability is subjective and I believe this article was probably tagged AfD primarily because the reference links that helped to establish notability were dead links, and understandably caused the editor to see the organization as an unremarkable school.

After the article was tagged AfD, editors reestablished the two dead reference links and 3 new additional references to reliable secondary sources were added. Some of these sources are industry specific publications (i.e. Language magazine and Study/Travel Magazine) that editors may not be familiar with, but are well-known in the industry. On top of the fixed and new references, the article was edited to remove and clean up promotional verbiage and maintain a neutral tone. Please see link to comparison showing difference between article prior to AFD tag and article in current current state with post AFD edits addressing editors concerns. https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EasyMandarin&type=revision&diff=860511789&oldid=859116023Parkertony (talk) 04:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This article was not first tagged {{refimprove}} , {{primary sources}}, or {{notability}} to allow for time to fix issues. It went strait to AfD.Parkertony (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; I'm concerned by some of the new editors commenting above. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

What are you concerned about regarding the "new editors" commenting above? Why not try to address those concerns? I thought that this section was meant to be a discussion forum, but it feels more like a bully section and is clearly a case of Groupthink. The easiest thing to do here is for an editor to skim the first line of the nomination, skim the article, and simply write "delete, per nom". This requires no thought whatsoever and provides no constructive feedback. Did you know that the article has had a makeover since the article was nominated including bringing back the dead links that were an issue per nom. Again, here is a link showing before and after: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=EasyMandarin&type=revision&diff=860511789&oldid=859116023 The commentary above raises important, relevant issues that directly impact whether or not this article should be included in Wikipedia. In order for Wikipedia to be consistent, editors should compare apples to apples. This article is a private school, so wouldn't it make sense to take a look at a sample of other private school articles on Wikipedia? My argument is that this article is more acceptable than most private school articles and therefore should not be deleted. Wikipedia guidelines such as WP:OSE point to Wikipedia article consistency being an important factor on deciding whether or not articles should be included in Wikipedia. Take a look at at this article for example, Western International School of Shanghai. It has zero references and was mostly edited by a user named "Wissmarketing". This article was not marked AFD and has been active since 2008. This article is not an outlier at all, neither are the 30 schools that I listed above. 90% of private school articles have a less acceptable level of acceptance on Wikipedia as the article in this AFD. If this article gets deleted, then there is a solid case to delete hundreds if not thousands of other private school articles on Wikipedia. I am sorry if I am being repetitive and lengthy, but it seems like my commentary is being completely ignored or misunderstood by editors. Parkertony (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No. the issue is simply that editors have limited time to delete articles. There may be hundreds or thousands of bad articles, but their existance can't be used to argue that they should all be kept. You linked to WP:OSE, but have you yet read WP:ININ? For more detail you can also look at Wikipedia:Notability (high_schools). — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

FrayaeThe argument is not to keep the article in this AFD because it is similar to thousands of bad articles that exist on Wikipedia. I don't think any Wikipedia editor would try to make such a ridiculous argument. My first and foremost argument is that I believe the subject of the article is notable and that it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or WP:NCORP. My second argument which brings into account the guideline WP:OSE is that compared to an entire category of articles written on Wikipedia, private schools, this article is more acceptable. Since the article is about a private school, it would make sense to look at other private schools on Wikipedia. Appreciate you taking the time to provide your input and analysis for this AFD discussion as I believe this is how AFD is meant to work. Thank you.Parkertony (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

• COMMENT: In their reply to the article, Parkertony (the article's creator and only main contributor) wrote "I believe this article was probably tagged AfD primarily because the reference links that helped to establish notability were dead links, and understandably caused the editor to see the organization as an unremarkable school." I thought the nomination was perfectly clear, but as the nominator I will reiterate that the article makes no claims to notability. Wikipedia is not a directory of businesses. It is an encyclopedia. Why does an article about this school belong in an encyclopedia? I see nothing in the article's content to justify its inclusion. It appears to me to be a business listing. As for the newly added references, we should all look at them one by one and narrow down which, if any, meet the criteria described in WP:NCORP. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
• COMMENT: In their comment above, Curb Safe Charmer (the nominator of this AFD) opens with a note about me claiming I am "the article's creator and only contributor". This article had 38 editors contribute to it according to the statistics https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/EasyMandarin. I am not sure why the editor thought this was relevant to note, but yes, I created this article for a college assignment years ago after attending the school's summer program. I am defending this article not only because I created it, but because I believe it is a notable school with proper references and written in a neutral tone according to Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a history of accepting Private_schools such as the one in this article, and currently continues to do so. There is an argument to be made that both private and public schools are run as businesses, and there are thousands and thousands of school articles included in Wikipedia. The reason that I wrote "I believe this article was probably tagged AfD primarily because the reference links that helped to establish notability were dead links, and understandably caused the editor to see the organization as an unremarkable school." was because the editor that tagged this AFD for discussion went on holiday (accordging to their talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Curb_Safe_Charmer) after tagging AFD, and was not participating in the discussion that the editor created. The article in this AFD was not given an opportunity to fix the dead links and other article issues raised. Rather than being tagged {{refimprove}} , {{primary sources}}, or {{notability}} to fix, it was immediately tagged WP:AFD which automatically adds a bias and paints a negative picture of the article for editors viewing and evaluating for the first time. Parkertony (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

• COMMENT:Regarding notability. I believe that the school being selected and written about in Time Out (magazine) article "The best Chinese language classes in Shanghai", being written about in industry magazines (Language magazine and Study/Travel Magazine), and the founder being interviewed and school written about in a China news site (GB Times) meets notability guidelines. Of course, some editors may not find that these items make it notable. As mentioned above, I think it is a good idea for editors to also look at the level of notability that was and is acceptable of other private school articles on Wikipedia as a reference to maintain consistency in the encyclopedia per WP:OSE. Parkertony (talk) 03:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
• COMMENT: As this AfD is focussed on the strength or otherwise of the references, here's my assessment of those:

Analysis of references

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
radio86.com: Learn Chinese in Shanghai	Y	N	Y	Y	N	This is an interview with the founder
studytravel magazine	N	N	Y	N	N	A single sentence attributed to the school's founder
Timeout - The best Chinese language classes in Shanghai	N	?	Y	Y	N	Just a paragraph providing the writer's opinion on the school, the classes on offer and prices. Not in depth coverage.
languagemagazine.com: So you want to learn Chinese	N	N	Y	N	N	Appears to be advertorial, probably paid promotion
thebeijinger.com blog: See How Your Mandarin Measures Up With These 5 Digital Proficiency Tests	N	Y	Y	Y	N	A link to an online test on the company website
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Curb Safe Charmer Why do you believe the Timeout reference is not significant? The Timeout article talks about the school location, school trips, classes offered, and prices. What more do you expect a secondary source to write about a school? Same goes for The Beijinger reference - the reference includes a full paragraph dedicated to the school describing, in detail, the school's online language proficiency test as well providing a link to them. Please keep in mind that this article is about a school and look at the precedent that has already been set on Wikipedia regarding schools in your evaluation. Thank you. Parkertony (talk) 18:10, 25 September 2018 (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.