Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMK Raja Muda


 * 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)  05:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

SMK Raja Muda

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not pass the notability guidelines for organisations/companies or general notability guideline. Confirmed by a google search. Ultimately inactive and really, really small articles. Please also refer WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. NgYShung (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a legitimate secondary school (SMK) in Malaysia. See entry at Malaysian MOE. As it is verified, we can keep the article per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reminder to other editors: That WP:V is important. And WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is valid only if reliable independent sources can verify that the school exists. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that N, ORG, and GEO are controlling; I see all three require significant, independent coverage in reliable sources; ORG—a formal guideline—explicitly states that schools must meet NORG's or GNG's modest requirements. So, answering that: There is some coverage, but it falls far short of that standard. Rebb  ing  00:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per long standing consensus on educational institutions of this type, that if sources 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! 11:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an essay not a guideline however a source has been provided to show the school exists so I see no reason to delete. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:40, 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.