Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of slums in Indonesia


 * 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   delete. J04n(talk page) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

List of slums in Indonesia

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

was PRODded 11 months ago with the concern "POV potential, as well as a fly-by stub with no refs or effort to substantiate the subject - I am not saying there are not slums in Indonesia - but this current stub has no effort to back up with WP:RS or text or anything". PROD was removed but article has not been improved since. — rybec   20:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete this one and all the rest.  There's a lot of these (Category:Lists of slums), but none of them are really more than WP:INDISCRIMINATE lists with no encyclopedic or notable value.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are only four alleged slums listed here. Two of them are redlinks and two have articles in Wikipedia. However, neither of the two places with articles is described as a slum in its own article. Due to concerns about neutral point of view, original research, and verifiability, we should not have an article about a "list of slums" when there are no sources provided to identify these places as slums. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The only prior, similar AFD I could find was Articles for deletion/List of slums in the Philippines, which resulted in deletion. postdlf (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Hmmm, where to begin? Pure OR? Yes that. Unsourced? Yep. No commonly-acceptable inclusion criteria? Yes. Carrite (talk) 05:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The criteria for inclusion is highly subjective, and wholly unsourced. This can't happen with a sensitive topic like this. This is like a sensitive BLP; due to the subject's negative connotation we have to get it 100% right or not have it at all.  Them From  Space  22:07, 29 March 2013 (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.