Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1989 Kedah Madrasah fire


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

1989 Kedah Madrasah fire

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A genuine tragedy, to be certain, but the encyclopedic notability of this event is absent from the article. Fires are common and there is no evidence that this blaze brought about any significant changes or repercussions. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete per nom. Appears to have had some news at the time but no evidence of long term notability. TravellingCari  18:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  00:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  TravellingCari  21:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Surely it was a big deal in Malaysia. If 27 girls were killed in fire in the US we would have templates, spinout articles, etc. dedicated to this fire. Per WP:BIAS, article should be kept. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per brewcrewer. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The title of the article's sole reference, Mangsa Kebakaran Paling Ramai - Buku Rekod Malaysia Edisi Kedua, is translated as "Most numerous victims of fire - Malaysian Book of Records (2nd Edition)" in Malay. Given the fire was listed in such a book, it has to amount to something. I believe the problem lies in the fact that there is a language barrier while very little is revealed in the article on the effects and importance of the incident; research on the topic is particularly hampered by the inaccessibility of old archives in Malaysia, and, even if they were republished, are limited to a handful of surviving printed media which are usually hard to come by if they are not reprinted. In the interest of minimising already excessive symetic bias towards Western POV, especially in the case of articles on recent accidents that are less severe, I would have opted to keep the article and await further expansion before passing proper judgement. - Two hundred percent (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per brewcrewer. Mystache (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per brewcrewer; but we need references, even if not online or in English. Cultural bias is an ongoing problem here, along with recentism. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  13:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Only one small reference found. Fails notability guidelines.  Gtstricky Talk or C 15:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NOTNEWS is an essay. WP:NOT, on the other hand, doesn't suggest that we can't report on notable news, only that we shouldn't be trying to act as a news site. 1989 is not news, and that's an incredibly illogical premise for a vote. As for, me, it's verifiable and we have no OR in the article. IAR says if we can't be sure about notability due to language issues, keep it rather than delete it. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 18:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I'm inclined to Keep this one, as well. Since the event was in 1989, I don't take NOTNEWS as a valid rationale for deletion - though, if this were last week, I'd probably agree with the nom. I don't have a doubt about notability as such, but more sources must be forthcoming. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A book has been published about this fire. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.