Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Engineering education in Taiwan

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering education in Taiwan

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

A non-notable topic. Reads like advertising for the universities that offer engineering degrees. Wizard191 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In principle, the topic is notable enough, although the current article is uninspiring. Perhaps someone who reads Chinese could expand the article, possibly based on any relevant articles in the Chinese-language Wikipedias and appropriate reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I disagree with the nominator; this is a perfectly notable topic. Sure it's spammy but that can be cleaned up editorially. TerriersFan (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I Have significantly cut down the pov in this article and advertising spam. If you disagree with my edit please revert it. After cutting information that seemed povish there is not much left to the article describing why its notable as a stand alone. Alot of the materials seems to be a from sysnthesis and i dont know how much is actually true. I think as said above it could be devloped and saved, but someone with knowledge behind the material needs to step forward and help fix it (perhaps making a list article???). Otherwise as the nominator states its notability is questionable and demands adequate secondary sourcing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that the topic is notable. Every industrialized countries has higher education and offers degrees. We do not have articles on every combination of major and country, nor should we. And the article gives no indication as to why engineering in Taiwan is particularly notable. Readin (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That it is not well-written is beyond dispute; whether or not it is 'notable' is unclear, for the term is vague. If the relevant principle is that whenever it is the case that many Xs have Ys, an article which proclaims little more than that yet another X has Y should be deleted, then wikipedia would lose many, many entries. Were that principle to be widely applied, I would endorse 'delete'. But that principle isn't widely applied, and this article might, eventually, be carefully developed by some properly informed person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.121.35.248 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is precisely defined on Wikipedia here: Notability. Please review it to see if you still think the article is notable per the guideline. Wizard191 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do thank you for the observation, but having read the guidelines as regards what constitutes 'notability', I conclude that we use the term 'precise' differently. But since I don't plan to present an analysis of those guidelines here, I cannot fault you. I'll just note that the guidelines indicate that what matters is not necessarily whether a given article satisfies the guidelines. What matters is whether the article 'could readily' satisfy those guidelines. My 'keep' vote merely indicates that I believe those guidelines (such as they are) could be satisfied. Again though, I thank you for the observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.128.136.30 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (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.