Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newton Study Center

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. On the keep side, we have suggestions that there are sufficient secondary sources in the article, but the delete based comments give a more compelling argument with policy based (WP:V, WP:N..) reasoning. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton Study Center

It is not a notable educational institution in the Philippines and it seems to be an advertisement because of its inclusion in almost all Philippine-based Wikipedias. Jojit (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advert. Lack of G hits (most of which are Wiki mirrors) and versions restricted to Philippine language Wikipedia. note that afd was reverted twice in the article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 07:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes the primary notability criterion: "An entity is presumed to be notable if it has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Linaew (talk) 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: on the article alone, there are no links suggesting secondary source citations. --Howard the Duck 08:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contra User:Linaew, there is no evidence of any reliable secondary sources (i.e. something which is not the Newton Study Center's website, their advertisements, or random blogs and forums). Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL ... nothing on GNews, not even get thinly-veiled advertorials. cab (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content is within the interest to a certain segment of the population. It could be edited to make it factual. By having it on the wikipedia will make the information more editable and verifiable by the users of wikipedia. An additional ariticle on wikipedia means that more information is appropriated by the wikipedians. Azumizoku (talk) 09:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon further inspection, this establishment is not a school; it's review center. I dunno if in other countries "review centers" exist but in the Philippines, these "review centers" are established for the sole purpose of passing certain exams, such as the different board and college entrance exams. These are not regulated by the Department of Education (Philippines) (at least on my latest account). --Howard the Duck 09:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Sandai Yobiko: article in Japanese wikipedia is an example of a review school. If you are interested in a list of review schools in Japan look at Category:List of Review Schools (page in Japanese Wikipedia) Azumizoku (talk) 09:20, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What is the difference between a review center and a review school? --Howard the Duck 09:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Basically similar. Although, review entities in Japan could be divided into a jukuand a yobikou. Although, the entity at hand does not use "review center"; it uses "study center"; i believe they are all similar and no need to distinguish. Azumizoku (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are these study centers regulated by the education ministry? --Howard the Duck 09:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Both of you are missing the point. Being regulated by the Department of Education, the Department of Corrections, or the Department of Apocalyptic Affairs isn't important. Sandai Yobikou is notable because it has non-trivial sources about it, e.g. [1][2]. Having an article about Sandai Youbikou doesn't mean that every little non-notable review school gets to have its own article too, any more than having an article about La Tour d'Argent means that every single restaurant with a Department of Health inspection certificate hanging on their wall gets a space on Wikipedia where we regurgitate what they say about themselves on their own website. cab (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, quite a few Philippine public high schools went into AFD and were saved because they were administered by the Dept. of Education and hence notable by default; review centers aren't regulated by the DepEd (actually I don't know what agency regulates them, the SEC perhaps...). --Howard the Duck 08:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, then edit. Should be rewritten to avoid sounding like an advertisement. Starczamora (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter if we rewrite it to avoid "sounding" like an advertisement, the organisation is so non-notable that the only information about it is that which it chooses to publicise about itself, and that information has seen no third-party verification. WP:SELFPUB states that articles should not be based primarily on self-published sources, and there's nothing else which we could possibly base this article. cab (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Howard: neither a school nor notable. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why we must delete this article? I thinks is not an advert 'cause is information about a University like oxford or Cambridge. This article must not be deleted. --Jeneme (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment UPCAT review currently redirects to this article even if there are lots of review schools here that caters to UPCAT reviewers. Note that the references given are not independent and the bitstop link looks like an ad. This review center was established in 2001 so I believe more online references should be found for this article as most online Philippine newspaper articles are limited to 2000's.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I redirected UPCAT review and Upcat review to University of the Philippines College Admission Test for now and watchlisted them. cab (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a for-profit entity, right? We need to apply WP:ORG, WP:N and WP:RS standards strictly when it comes to for-profit entities. And even if we didn't, I see no reliable, independent sources here at all and, having looked at Google, Google News and Google News Archives, no clear prospects for getting them. Noroton (talk) 21:24, 14 February 2008 (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.