Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMK Semera


 * 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  No consensus to delete. Sources have been added since the AfD started and generally high schools are considered notable if their existence can be verified. RMHED (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

SMK Semera

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnotable school. Article nothing but a repeat of student publicity materials per an earlier version (including earliest version having the same promotional words). Fails WP:N. There is no such thing as "automatic notability" for schools in any guideline nor policy. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete high schools may be notable, but there are no sources to indicate the level and size, or even verify the existence, of this school. JJL (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Uncertain As I reminded the author, there needs to be some sort of source. There is no explicit guideline that every actual secondary school is notable & I've never said there is, though I think there ought to be.  it's just that every one whose actual existence can be proven that has been brought here for the last 18 months has been kept, on the basis that in practice notability can be found. Be aware of the very difficult cultural bias in finding sources or the area involved. DGG (talk) 03:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So far, the author's only sources have been some school newsletters, some school directory sites (no better than IMDB style listings), and the school's official website is apparently a wordpress blog. I don't think its an issue of cultural bias here...but a lack of any notability, even in Malayasia -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Rewrite(is that a valid one?), otherwise Delete. It has zero citations (those citations aren't inline, they are just websites, it's hard to figure out what citation cites stuff), and doesn't establish notability. ムー カオズ ルール (Talk to Moo) 05:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If the school's existence can't be verified then delete the article content and speedy delete as empty. But if the information can be verifed, I think well established high schools are notable. Why would this one be different? ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes a "well established high school" notable? The issue is, does it actually meet WP:N, not just "its a high school" (maybe). Just because it is a high school does not make it notable. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, so how is it notable? Existence along is not a valid reason to have a Wikipedia article. Right now, its existance is marginally verifiable of sorts, though its "official" website is a wordpress blog and the article is at its "best" after nearly a year and seems likely to primarily be a copy of the school promotional materials with mild copyediting. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 08:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Rome is not built in one day. Every mile starts in a step. Well, if you think this article is unsourced/unreliable/fake, just let time prove it. I'll try to improve it. Sorry for being harsh, but I have a kind of feeling that you guys are just trying to "attack" this article until it gets deleted. If you think this article should be deleted because of XXX, then, what do you think of:
 * SMK Seberang Jaya
 * SMK Seksyen 10 Kota Damansara
 * SMK Aminuddin Baki, Johor Bahru
 * SMK Bandar Utama
 * And more...

Reliable? Well-linked? Notable? What do you think? If these articles are getting deleted, I think you're really trying to eliminate all the articles about schools in Malaysia. Are you?--Mark Chung (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - I see that we are defining a new metaphysical concept of reality. Something only exists if its presence can be verified on the Internet. Forget that there is a large, physical school with teachers and students bustling around being educated; unless it it has a definitive web presence it might be the figment of an over-excited imagination. TerriersFan (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Its existance is irrelevant. Lots of things exist without being notable. It isn't notable. That is the issue. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless you have carried out a comprehensive search of documents at the local library you are not in a position to say that. Malaysian schools traditionally have a poor internet presence and to avoid systemic bias we need to await a search for local sources. Invariably, sources to support the notability of high schools are available if sufficient in-depth searching is carried out. TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am and no, invariably sources do not support the notability of high schools. This is a false argument frequently used in such AfDs that are never backedup. Local newspapers alone are NOT evidence of notability. If the school has not received significant coverage, it is not notable. If that significant coverage can NOT be demonstrated when questioned, it is not notable. The onus is on those claiming keep to actually show that such sources DO exist and to produce them, not just claim "well, its a high school, so of course its notable." -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Article does not show notability. Extremepro (talk) 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Userfy: This school does exist at shown here . Article needs citations and serious cleanup, but generally, all high schools are considered notable. See WP:HS. There is almost always sufficient material available to show a high school's notability, but the current article state is serious lacking. --Chasingsol(talk) 12:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's neither a guideline nor a policy (not even a well accepted essay). There is no official guideline stating that all high schools are considered notable, nor should they be. Most high schools are not, in fact, notable. The sports being reported in the local news is not notability. High School articles are subject to WP:N same as all articles (and maybe WP:ORG if one wanted to go with a secondary guide). This article fails both. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 14:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Collectonian, thank you for the response to my comment. I am familiar with Wikipedia policies regarding notability requirements. I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, hence my 'Weak Keep'. As I stated, the article is seriously lacking at this time and requires citations and cleanup. In the past, the vast majority of high school articles nominated for AfD have been kept to allow the authors time to provide sufficient evidence of notability. If the article does not improve, then I would be inclined to vote for deletion in the future, but at this time I believe it should be kept or moved to user space. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 15:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up - links in teh article establish notability. Artw (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How do forum postings and standard directory listings that include every school in existance establish a drop of notability for this school? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At least two of them are from www.moe.gov.my, the official Malaysia's Educational Department portal/website. --Mark Chung (talk) 06:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are not third party sources and do not establish notability. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 06:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "third party sources"? --Mark Chung (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In simplified terms, someone outside the subject writing about the subject. If a man writes about himself or his spouse writes about him we don't expect the writing to be objective, although it still might be. But if someone independent writes about him then we find that writing more objective and neutral. If you can find some newpapers writing about the school and activities there in a meaningful way that would go a long way to helping others see the value. -- Banj e b oi   15:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think there is. Since it's holiday now, I'll go to the school to check it out when the school's open. It'll take a couple of days before the school's reopened. --Mark Chung (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to check over Citation templates for whatever sources you do find to see what information from those sources we hope to get in way of documentation. For instance for a book we hope to get a page number whereas that isn't so critical with an online source if we have the weblink. But even with online sources we want to see more than just the link. We you find sourcing fill in as much as you can. -- Banj e  b oi   07:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Neutral for now. I'm quite concerned about the WP:Bitey-ness here and would feel more comfortable if some experienced in that region could offer some insight. A school of that capacity and length of existence is quite likely to have stumbled into some notability and may not know what lever to pull at wikipedia to sort that out. I don't see this as a hoax as much as newbies needing help. -- Banj e b oi   15:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Mark Chung has been editing since January, so no biting going on (though its becoming clearer that despite being here nearly a year, it isn't as well versed in Wikipedia guidelines and policies that I originally presumed). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right about me for being a year. You're also right about me being not well versed in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. These are ridiculously too long for me. I didn't even know where to find them before! But now I do. In User:Collectonian/Links. I treat everything in common sense. I only read Wikipedia guidelines and policies when needed, like now. --Mark Chung (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I almost forgot. Shouldn't users be judged based on their experience, rather than their age? --Mark Chung (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh? No one is judging you based on your age, but on your perceived experience editing at Wikipedia, or lack there of. Minors are sometimes judged by their age, depending on the situation, but otherwise few people know each others ages here. That said, now that I've seen your user page (and only just now know your age), you may wish to read the guidelines and policies regarding minors. It's generally discouraged from mionors giving their ages or other personal identifier info in their user pages. At least now your reactions make more sense... -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Grah! I'm not talking the age in real life (by the way, don't always trust userboxes because people can fake their age and other personal info - who knows?) but in Wikipedia, which means I'm 11 months and 22 days old now. Hey! This is off-topic! We'd better stop talking about these anymore. --Mark Chung (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:39, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 00:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:ORG - the article has no reliable independent third party references which demonstrate notability (forum posts are not considered to be reliable sources), and none have been provided above. There is not a consensus on high schools being notable, so WP:ORG needs to be met. Nick-D (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a school article, or a educational institution. Thus, WP:ORG doesn't appply here. Mark Chung (talk)
 * That's not correct: WP:ORG is the closest there is to a relevant guideline. The article also doesn't meet the general notability standards at WP:N due to the lack of independent reliable sources which demonstrate notability. Nick-D (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not all schools are notable. This one is questionable due to the quality of the sources in the article. I so far have not been able to find a listing of it in the Malay Ministry of Education website, so even its existence or official endorsement cannot be substantiated. Unless this fundmental problem can be addressed, the article should be deleted unless the sources are up to scratch. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to find it in there, I provided it. The PDF file is from the Ministry of Education website. Mark Chung (talk)


 * Keep not all schools are notable. All established secondary schools with a real existence are, as I think is shown by repeated consensus here, and the sourcing, though far from the desirable, is enough to show that. The apparent lack of consensus on the guidelines page is because opinion is so divided that no position, whether extreme or compromise, has ever gotten sufficient agreement there. fortunately, Afd is not thus subject to blocking by minorities, there needs to be a consensus to delete.   DGG (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please strike out your previous vote. Mark Chung (talk)
 * What previous vote? DGG said "uncertain" above. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep In general secondary schools will have notability due to sports team coverage and other local coverage. We seem to agree that WP:V is met.  I don't see how a reasonable person can believe there aren't significant numbers of secondary sources about a high school.  Given the nature of the HS, it isn't shocking that the Internets doesn't have that coverage.  So Keep as (very) likely notable. 141.212.111.116 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2008 (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.