Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMK Kok Lanas


 * 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)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  05:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

SMK Kok Lanas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass the notability guidelines for organisations/companies or general notability guideline. Confirmed by a google search. Inactive and small articles for over 4 years. Please also refer WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NgYShung (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that the only source cited in the article, here, lists Wikipedia as one of its sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that consensus require that the school's status be verified, ? Cordless Larry (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a legitimate secondary school (SMK - Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan. It is a term used for government secondary schools in Malaysia) in Malaysia and we keep it per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. However, makes a very important point that the school's existence should be verified from reliable sources. I have previously seen multiple editors voting "keep" without checking if the school actually exists. In this case fortunately, the school is verified (See entry at Malaysian MOE) and a mention in Utusan Malaysia. But there was a recent AfD (brought to my notice by ) where not a single reliable source was presented to even prove if the school exists, and yet the article was kept. It should be remembered that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is valid only if reliable sources are presented to show that the school is a high school (not a primary/middle school) and it exists. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that reminder, . I have made this point in several deletion discussions, but often the keepers don't respond when asked about verifiability. A similar think happened at Articles for deletion/Rapha International School, with editors simply taking the word of the article that the school existed and was a secondary school. Thanksfully, in that case sense prevailed. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES seems to increasingly be treated as a reason to keep any article that asserts that it is about a secondary school, regardless of the evidence. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do we know whether either of those sources verify that it is a secondary school, ? I have removed the unreliable source from the article, but am finding it difficult knowing what either of those sources can be used to verify due to them being in Malay. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:11, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry - that's what SMK means. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, I forgot to explain that. Yes, SMK is Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan. It is a term used for government secondary schools in Malaysia. I've added it to my comment above. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. SCHOOLOUTCOMES points to N, ORG, and GEO; all three require significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. (ORG—an actual guideline, not an essay—explicitly states that schools must meet the notability guidelines the same as any other organization.) With that said, the available coverage is enough to prove existence but far less than that required by SCHOOLOUTCOMES and ORG. Rebb  ing  00:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per long standing consensus on educational institutions of this type, that if sources such as the added cite book verify the institution exists, cf. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES that says: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists", we default to keep. — Sam Sailor Talk! 11:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep/ per sources provided .– Davey 2010 Talk 00:42, 4 August 2016 (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.