Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bukit Tagar Landfill


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. (non-admin closure) D ARTH P ANDA duel 20:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Bukit Tagar Landfill

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

I see no claim of notability to this particular garbage dump. Others such as Dhapa, India do have at least some claim but this arrears to have none. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - article contains many substantial scholarly third party sources. Meets and exceeds the usual inclusion threshold by a wide margin.  I see no reason to make a highly exceptional choice in this case. Wily D  00:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When I first prodded the article it contained nothing at all and you have since added several works on the landfill. However, I don't see anything in them that indicates why this paticular landfill is notable. I can find several works and studies on the sewage lagoon that was developed and constructed for Ulukhaktok, Northwest Territories but the existance of them does not indicat that the lagoon would be anymore notable than this landfill. By the way why is it "...a highly exceptional choice in this case." CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Err, I have not edited the article at all. User:Uncle G has taken the time to dig up the sources.  Notable is Wikipedia jargon - in order to try and take a neutral point of view on what's notable, we follow what more authoritative sources have already deemed to be notable.  If the sewage lagoon for Ulukhaktok is discussed in a plethora of reliable sources, then the usual understanding is that it is notable, as it is also in the dictionary definition (indeed, many people have taken note of this garbage dump).
 * In any event, notability isn't established by the inclusion of sources in the article, but by there mere existence. Rushing to AfD without investigating the article is never a good choice.
 * It would be a highly exceptional choice to delete something which met and exceeded the criteria of the guideline on inclusion, since that very rarely happens. Wily D 13:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I did mean Uncle G. However, at the time I first saw the article (here) there was nothing in it to indicate notability. Nor after checking through the history did I find anything that indicated notability either. In fact if this article had been about a band or a person then it would have been eligible for a speedy, and it's possible to argue that the article, at the time, could have been deleted at any time as a A3 ("...a rephrasing of the title,..."). Of the six items listed under further reading only one, the "Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium", provides any concrete proof of notability. The first is an advertising piece from one of the developers. The last four are newspapers and without knowing the papers concerned it's hard to tell if they are reporting news or it's just filler. They fall under the "Presumed" section of Notability. That is the same point that I was trying to make with the Ulukhaktok sewage lagoon. There are several government documents dealing with it and several newspaper reports on it. The newspaper reports tend to be filler and human interest items rather than real news which the paper would also cover. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Wily's careful assessment of the subject's notability. His efforts meet the usual criteria and I see no reason to deviate here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per the sources added that indicate it has been the in-depth subject of secondary sources, the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The additions by User:Uncle G, in particular the the fact that it was featured at the "Eleventh International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium" (http://warrr.org/81/) persuades me that the landfill is indeed notable and I wish to withdraw the nomination. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:49, 15 November 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.