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 merge to English Schools Foundation. SoWhy 10:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenealy School (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)

Non notable primary school. Fails WP:GNG. All sources are biographical, routine, and non-news related, and do not indicate the notability. alphalfalfa^(talk) 01:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added sources which indicate notabilityHyungjoo98 (talk) 03:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's run down your sources:

1. Autobiographical

2. Fleeting, non-notable mention

3. A map?

4. List of schools that doesn't mention Glenealy

5. Fleeting routine biography,which has a profile on every school in the organization

6. Fleeting routine biography

7. Autobiographical

None of your added sources "indicate notability." WP:GNG states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention," and that "'Sources' should be secondary sources," and "Independent of the subject." alphalfalfa^(talk) 04:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added several additional sources, including some from national newspapers (South china morning post). Clearly meets notability guidelines, especially compared to other articles. I would also like to point out that none of the sources are mine, so therefore I am not sure what te list is talking about. I do not take ownership of Wikipedia articles Hyungjoo98 (talk) 10:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep and improve - This is a famous school from English Schools Foundation in Hong Kong. Editors just have to work harder on the article. STSC (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very few primary schools have national-level news article level notability, yet have articles which are not flagged for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 (talk • contribs) 0848 27 July 2017 (UTC) Note that this editor is the author of this article. John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Key part of Hong Kong history in regard to those who attended as well as school itself, which is linked strongly with Hong Kong Park (one of the major parks in the SAR).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyungjoo98 (talk • contribs)

• Merge / Redirect to 'ESF' main article. I found little secondary sources for me to improve 'Glenealy School' article. STSC (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already 25 sources (most secondary, 2 articles from SCMP), and just added another one from LCSD website. STSC, how many more do you think is required to establish notability??? Hyungjoo98 (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to English Schools Foundation. It's a primary school that fails WP:AUD with only local coverage and directory-type listings. The author could try an alternative outlet, such as localwiki:, with different inclusion criteria and where content of local interest might be more suitable. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC). Incorrect on local coverage. South China Morning Post is a national level newspaper (similar to the NY Times or Straits times, but obviously more focused on Hong Kong related items). Wikipedia is a international encyclopedia, while this article may have no notability in the USA (where understandably most editors are from) this does not mean it has "only local" notability Hyungjoo98 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment - only English language references are included at the moment. Chinese language ones are much more numerous (due to HK being majority Chinese speaking). In addition, the suggestion to move to a local wiki is misguided, as Hong Kong is too large to be considered just "local interest". Passes WP:SIGCOV even with just English language sources.Hyungjoo98 (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge (and leave a redirect) to English Schools Foundation. There is no significant claim to importance, and simply a plethora of sources does not always add up to notability. 'I like it because lots of Hong Kong people went to it' is not an argument. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง, You are absolutely correct that a plethora of sources does not indicate notability, and that "because lots of Hong Kong people went to it" is not argument (in fact, it can't be an argument, considering the small size of the school). However, this are not the issues that are discussed here. The issue is whether the sources indicate notability. I have stated earlier that there are national-level sources (South China Morning Post, Brand HK (HK Government newssite)), which mention Glenealy School, indicating its notability. In addition, these sources are not of simply local importance, making a move to a local Wiki inappropriate.

In regards to merging to page to the main ESF page, this would create an extremely large and cluttered page, as the ESF is a large organisation which oversees the operation of a very large number of schools. Hyungjoo98 (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2017 (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.