Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pondok Indah


 * 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. — CharlotteWebb 04:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Pondok Indah
PROD was removed, BUT article was not changed in any other way, and issues mentioned in the PROD were not addressed. The article is about a non-notable housing development. Neighborhoods that are historically significant in some way; inasmuch as they generate significant independant references, ARE valid encyclopedia articles. This one does not qualify. A google search turns up some references to a shopping mall and a golf course, however these are all referenced by the mall itself, shops within the mall, or by the golf course itself. Additionally, the article has very little assertion of notability (a single possibly notable golf tournament was held there, but it is unreferenced) and the entire article is unreferenced. Until and unless the article can be properly referenced in reliable sources, per WP:RS and can show notability through said sources, it should be deleted. Jayron 32 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, why was the Prod removed after only 1 day? It stated 5 days. Thus what is the point of prod? As for the question at hand, from my knowledge, Pondok Indah is the wealthiest area in jakarta (or second to the older Kemang district). Jakarta is one of the largest cities in the world and capital of the world's fourth biggest country. Yes, "estate" sounds like a single development, i understand it is much more like a suburb even area in scale. I suggest the article was written by non-native English speaker and hence notability is lost in translation. I will look into it myself, and try and get some Jakartan wikipedians to comment. But don't remove this in a day either please - gives us a few days. I am leaning to "keep" but would of course like confirmation of its status.--Merbabu 00:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * reply PRODs left after five days automatically delete the article in question. The idea behind a PROD is to draw attention to an article that as it stands does not look to be of an encyclopedic subject.  Based on the way the article is written, it LOOKS to me like a newly developed rich housing development.  It has an advertisement feel to it.  I tried to establish notability first by doing a google search, AND by reading the articles I found there.  I could find no reliable third-party references to the area in question.  Since the PROD was removed without any change made to the article (which is what a PROD specifically calls for: Improvement), I moved it here to AFD, which is the next step after a PROD.  I assert that as it stands now the article should be deleted.  Comments below are made by people who think otherwise.  If they can provide evidence (read: reliable sources WP:RS) that supports the assertions made below, and can integrate them into the article in question, I will withdraw my nomination.  But I am still waiting on the needed references.  --Jayron 32  03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You have to remember, that Indonesia is not the same as the US. It is relatively poor, less-educated, less IT-savvy, less internet orientated than your USA. It is a continual problem finding reliable info on the internet on INdonesiaa in English. Whereas on the USA, and my own Australia, it is not a problem. Please consider that. You are making your judgements from a USA point of view - expecting Indonesian topics to fit the same criteria of US or Australian topics isn't going to work. It's an ongoing and some extent inevitable systematic bias in Wikipedia - it's no one's fault in particular.
 * Pondok Indah I understand had its first modern developments in the 1970s - that's old for Jakarta.--Merbabu 04:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - This looks like a signifficant section of Jakarta, notable for its wealth - an annual salary of US$357,200 in any place, no less Indonesia, is a pretty high assertation of notability. Strangely, it's more than a "houseing estate" and it's surprising the article lists it as such.  And when Citibank names its branch there the Pondok Indah branch, you know it's a real place. --Oakshade 00:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * reply I could find a housing development in any city with the same or higher annual salary. It does not make it particularly notable.  Some neighborhoods are poor and notable, others are rich and unnotable.  The difference is whether or not the neighborhood in question is refered to in nontrivial, reliable, third party sources, not how rich its inhabitants are.  That a bank named its branch after the area is also not any indication of notability; Banks can name their branches after neighborhoods, streets, whatever.  It doesn't really make the thing the bank branch is named after notable.  Now, if the assertion is that this is an honest-to-god suburb, and much larger than what I think of when I see "housing estate" we only need to see references that confirm such, and I would THEN withdraw my nominiation.  But as it stands now it appears non notable, and thus deleteable. --Jayron 32  03:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As for this being an "honest-to-god suburb", there's already speculation by a former Jakarta resident here that "housing estate" is probably a translation mistake. Besides, the Yahoo Jakarta neighborhood Travel guide refers to Pondok Indah as a "district"  not a "housing estate".  That's an actual reference that beats yours or mine speculation and unless you can find a reliable third party source that counters that, that's all we got.  I'm finding that it's one of the most ritzy parts of Jakarta - and an average income of US$357,200 is a gigantic average income for any neighborhood and is very notable.  Look at Montecito, California, one of the wealthiest communities in the US and the median income there is just $110,669.  And if you don't find these things notable, that's your POV.  And about the banks, banks name their branches after the town they're in.  If a street is mentioned in the branch name, it usually is because one town has two or more branches and they add the street name as an addition; i.e. New York City - 5th Ave..  --Oakshade 04:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - as i recall from living in Jakarta almost 10years ago it was often referred to more than any other area because of its wealth. Ie, every big city has its notable wealthiest suburb. As for the term "housing estate", I am fairly certain that is a translation problem. Yes, there is new development there, but its not just one commercial development --Merbabu 00:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Merbabu. Brimba 07:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see the usefulness of this article. --Nielswik(talk) 08:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Keep per another editors. But it have to be added more worth--Nielswik(talk) 13:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Really, I cannot see why the article shoud be deleted. As an Indonesian, I know that it is a district and yes, one of the wealthiest district in Jakarta. Based on Merbabu and Oakshade's points we all can see the notability of the district. I also have searched pages about districts and I can find zillions of them. Imo  eng  08:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral I know the district, but speaking about notability, I have to say that the district is only known because of rich people living there. There's no such a qualified notability in terms of history that has contributed to Jakarta, compared with other historical districts (Kota, Glodok, Sunda Kelapa?), which some of them are still missing here. So I am afraid if richness is the only criterion for keeping it here, then there will be other rich districts pop up (Kapuk, Bintaro?). &mdash; Indon ( reply ) &mdash; 09:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I honestly would say there's more of interest than just wealth there. Firstly, a district of mostly wealthy ex-pats in Jakarta sounds very notable.  Secondly, with a concentration of such wealth, it shows a concentration of one of the most influencial segments of a gigantic metropolitan area.  Like other Indonesians here have said, unless we're familiar with the place, it's very presumptive of us to judge what qualifies as notable.  Your knowledged take on the district is highly valued and as for those other districts you mentioned that might still be missing, if they have historic or other value, I think most of us would like to see articles on them. --Oakshade 15:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep anyone with a lack of knowledge of Jakarta or Indonesia should not even question notability, they should stay well away from such suggestions - just look at the thousands of USA locations with 120 residents or a couple of thousand that have articles, and they have no notability issues on them whatsoever. SatuSuro 10:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, although I am not proposing any deletions, I decided to look up the home state in the USA of the proponent of the deletion; New Hampshire. It has a population of about 1m. Jakarta has a population of between 8 and 15m depending what one counts as Jakarta. Not many areas (or any?) in Jakarta have articles on them yet on the New Hampshire page alone i found dozens of tiny little towns. This one is a classic case of (admitedly unintended) bias on Wikipedia and was linked |from this part of the New Hampshire page. By rights, if the wealthiest suburb in the fourth largest country in the world needs to be deleted, will User:Jayron32 also be proposing this town of 0 (yes zero) population also be deleted? Another, and this town has 516 people and are simply told a "famous covered bridge" but we are told no more. I clicked on 6 locations from dozens just 1 state and got those. The name says it all: Plainfield, New Hampshire. DOn't get me wrong, I think it is great that this info is here, but people need to be consistent. Futhermore, i think the problem with Pondok Indah may not be so much about notability but more about article quality. This explains quite a lot WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias --Merbabu 10:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * reply Thank you all for assuming good faith. I really like it when people assign motives to my actions without asking.  When I nominated this for AfD, I left a list of ways to make the article better.  All I am asking is for someone with experience in the area to please improve the article so it can be kept.  I WANT THE ARTICLE TO GET BETTER.  As it stood when I nominated it, it appeared non notable as written (housing estates are rarely notable; there was NO information in the article relating to population.  It read like an advertisement trying to sell homes in a new housing development.  See the version I nominated here)  Recent changes have made this more notable.  As a second note, if you want to nominate another article for deletion, do so, but THE EXISTANCE OF OTHER DELETABLE ARTICLES ON WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT ADD ANY VALUE TO THIS ARTICLE.  If you want to keep this article, add value to it by providing references. --Jayron 32  19:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * With genuine respect, i think you are possibly misinterpreting the intent of my post, but that is partly my fault perhaps - maybe I am not clear. I said I wasn't suggesting deletions, on the contrary, I specifically said I thought the info (on the New Hamp) towns is good. I was only using these NH state towns to point out wider systematic problem in Wikipedia that perhaps could explain your concerns with the Pondok Indah article. When I said systematic bias i did state it was unintended and a wikipedia problem, not your own personal bias, much less an attempt to cast aspersions about anyone's motives. In fact, this is my own pet hate. I never you assumed anything but good faith from you - I am surprised (and concerned) that my edits suggest otherwise but will certainly go thru this page and see if i can improve somehow. Although I disagree with the specific reasons for the nomination of Pondok Indah, I understand and support your initial rational, and indeed your right to do so - we all know this how wikipedia is improved.
 * The fact is, info on countries like the US and Australia is of relatively high quality (both on wikipedia and the wider internet), compared to, for example, equally notable Indonesia (or other "less developed" countries, for want of a better term). That goes a long way to explaining the bias in choosing articles to edit - that is, an Australian largely editting Indonesian-related articles. Sure, this goes beyond the article-specific issue at hand, but i included it here cos (IMO) it goes a long way to explaining how this became an issue in the first place.
 * lastly, perhaps all this belongs on user talk pages, but since your concerns are now in the open, i think it is appropriate, but not ideal, that I address them here. i hope this causes no offence.
 * Kind regards --Merbabu 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WITHDRAW NOMINATION The recent copyedits to the article, and the addition of the yahoo travel page have MORE than established notability. --Jayron 32 19:09, 2 November 2006 (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.