Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Mz7 (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese school

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

Unsourced stubby dictionary definition, mostly OR and inaccurate (There's at least one school here in the UK that doesn't cater to Americans, Canadians etc.). Could perhaps be redirected merged if there's a suitable target. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. The nominator is right about the current state of the article, but there's several dozen incoming links to this page from other articles[1], and it certainly has the potential to be a notable topic. It's a little hard to search the topic "Chinese School" because so many hits relate to schools in China. Here's a book entitled Becoming Chinese American: A History of Communities and Institutions that has two chapters about Chinese schools in the U.S. [2] GBooks searches for strings like <"Chinese school" America> and <"Chinese school" Britain> produce other potentially useful results such as [3] and [4] --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep; it definitely needs to be expanded, but it's likely that a good number of articles, essays, and books about Chinese-Americans cover these, and it's not too close to any other topic we currently have an article on. Tezero (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, notable without question. There are literally thousands of these established throughout the world by Chinese immigrant communities. Stubby articles on notable subjects should be expanded, not deleted. This is not a dictdef and is similar to articles like international school, madrasa, yeshiva, and other types of specialized educational institutions. —Lowellian (reply) 06:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:DICDEF explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." This confusion is what we seem to have here yet again. There's plenty more than can be said about such expatriate schools. See the Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Diaspora], for example. Andrew (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I can see this is unlikely to be deleted but there are some points that need addressing. As a definition, it only covers one particular meaning. A "Chinese school" could also be a school in China. It could be a school teaching in the Chinese language. It could also be a language school teaching Chinese to non-Chinese. The one nearest me teaches Chinese to people with both Chinese and English ancestry. The Routledge Handbook of the Chinese Diaspora examples seem mostly of teaching the curriculum in Chinese, in South-East Asia.

The article sort of qualifies this by excluding schools in China with "In Western countries" but it's bad practice to have an article focussed in such a way. We have e.g. Value added tax for the tax on a global basis and Value Added Tax (United Kingdom), one of many, focussed on it in the tax in a particular region. As noted above there are Chinese schools elsewhere in Asia than China, probably in many other countries of the world, so "In Western countries" isn't accurate either.

International schools, madrasas and yeshivas are all full schools, i.e. they take students full time, and are all well understood. There's no 'Chinese cultural school' equivalent to a madrasa or yeshiva while international schools are for students of all backgrounds, including Chinese, so there are no obvious parallels between those articles and this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:07, 15 April 2014 (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.