Schools in PRC: Information is/could be covered in Education in China .  33ABGirl ( talk ) 14:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education , Schools ,  and China .  33ABGirl ( talk ) 14:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment It looks like the article used to be called Private and public schools in China and was much more detailed, but Rastinition ( talk · contribs ) not only strip-mined the article of content under the rationale that we dont use the APA citation style (easily repairable, but instead, they just ripped out sources wholesale), said the article was from " a PRC citizen " (so?!) and then moved it to "Schools in PRC" purposefully so nobody could find this article and it would be easily deleted; there's also not a byte of discussion on the talk page before they went forward.  I'd love to hear from @ Rastinition : as to why they did this, and instead of the current dicdef version, we decide based on the merits of this edit before they came in and tore up the article, along with scaring off a new student editor in HaoweiDaBeast ( talk · contribs ) from ever editing here again with vicious edit summaries as they tried to address concerns.  Because of this, I have no vote! at this time; I do think a merge should happen, but not with this neutered version hammered in by one user with PAs.  Nate • ( chatter ) 01:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I only respond to the part where the name is changed.  In my understanding, schools include public schools and private schools If the theme of the narrative includes both public schools and private schools, then its theme should already include all schools.  Other parts I need time to check past edits.Since this was an event that happened 2 years ago, I'm unlikely to remember the details.  Rastinition ( talk ) 03:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I probably glanced at the version I didn't edit.That version has very large sections without source.  I know that he uses APA for some unsourced sections, but like (Lin, 1999) does not provide which paper or which author.  Because there is insufficient information, it is impossible for others to help him make up the correct citation.  Rastinition ( talk ) 08:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The best way to handle such a thing is to show the editor the proper Wikipedia citation template and ask them to convert APA to the Wikipedia citation template.  The next step is that there is a specific template for sections which do not yet have inline citations: {{inline}}, which tells the readers that there are sources but they aren't matched to inline citations.  WhisperToMe ( talk ) 00:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  22:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I recommend a procedural keep given issues brought up in comments above, an appropriate rollback to older version, with a possible following merge into Education in China if it's determined appropriate.  I've skimmed both articles and information differs enough that we'd lose something with a straight deletion.  I appreciate Rastinition's attempt to improve the state of the encyclopedia, but removing citations, converting to a stub, leaving the article as such, later leading to an AfD feels like an accidental misuse of tools and processes.  As a note, to respond to a comment by that editor above, I am able to find the papers that were referenced using alternate citation formats, so it would not be impossible for others to convert the citation.  — siro χ o 01:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , move back to the previous title, and revert the uncalled-for removals.  A merge may make sense eventually, but let's not lose the information that was in the article before it was gutted.  — Mx.  Granger ( talk · contribs ) 03:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep and restore to previous title and content.  Not sure what happened here but it definitely wasn't an improvement.  Reviewing the above-linked version , a reference such as "(Lin, 1999)" is not actually ambiguous (or even IMO at all problematic) because the article's references contain exactly one source with that author and year.  -- Visviva ( talk ) 00:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment .  When Nate first commented, I started a draft in my sandbox to restore the content, but I haven't had a chance to finish it yet.  33ABGirl ( talk ) 16:26, 28 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep