Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMK Green Road


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

SMK Green Road

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable school Ahunt (talk) 19:54, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm certainly not of the view that all high schools are presumed notable. But I do think there is sufficient coverage of this school in reliable sources to cross the general notability guideline. There are a raft of news articles as well as book mentions. Nearly all of them are little more than incidental mentions; but the quantity of the incidental mentions is enough to support a succinct verified article about the school. It wouldn't be enough to support an article on a BLP, but for a school, I think it is sufficient. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - the arguments for keeping high schools are at WP:HS/N. Also, as identified by Mkativerata, there are sufficient sources available from which the page can be expanded. Indeed, it is unusual for a Malaysian school to have such good Internet coverage. TerriersFan (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If there are really sufficient references to establish notability then it begs the question why this article has existing since 28 July 2006 and has never in its whole history cited a single reference. If either of you think the case can be made that there are references that establish notability then please feel free to prove your case by going ahead and editing the article while the AfD is continuing to include those refs as footnotes. I am not personally involved in the issue, just cleaning up non-notable articles, but I would hate to see this AfD end in a "keep" and then the article ends up as it is today, unreferenced and no indication of notability at all. It is worth noting that generally articles that are AfDed, kept but unreferenced are "stubified" after the AfD is complete. - Ahunt (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - the reason why it has remained unreferenced is that there are far more pages that need fixing than editors prepared to do the work and I do more than my fair share of sourcing school articles. We don't need to 'prove the case' by fully referencing it to an artificial time-scale; the fact that it can be readily seen that there are references out there is sufficient. Finally, stubbing a page is an editorial decision and is detrimental to development of the article. Since the content is factual and uncontroversial I will resist any attempt to stub the page. TerriersFan (talk) 16:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even listing the refs here would be helpful. Indicating keep and then once the AfD is over leaving an unref article as an unref article is not a good option. I would hope that this AfD will result in the article being fixed or deleted, not left in an unacceptable state. - Ahunt (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Thanks for the advice, that is the aim of the AfD as the article will either get fixed or deleted. At this point in the process it looks like it will be fixed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm not a fan of the 'all high schools' are notable idea but now most high schools are considered notable I think we need to be very careful how we treat them in countries where sources may be harder to find than in the UK/US so we don't show undue WP:BIAS just because we can't find sources.  In this case there even are such sources so I definitely feel that a keep is in order. Dpmuk (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2010 (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.