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. ansh 666 07:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phor Tay High School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing any notability outside what look like primary sources.

This is over 10 years old, and no decent sources have been added. Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A long lasting school (founded 1935) serving a community is of notable interest to that community (see WP:LOCAL) and also, following a long standing consensus on schools, especially secondary/High schools, these pages are usually kept as long as they are WP:V (verifiable). I see no reason at all to remove this page and the information it contains, as it is will be of notable interest to those who either in the present or the future wish to study education in the locality, or the locality in general. If you are concerned about the quality of the page, you may leave messages on their talk page, add sources yourself or propose redirects to a locality. You can also liaise with the relevant Wikiprojects. Simply deleting a page of verifiable information on a place of local interest helps no one.Egaoblai (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are interested in this article, why do you not improve it? The Banner talk 10:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not how a AFD discussion works, by the same token, I might ask, "if you think the article isn't good enough, why not improve it?" However given that you think it can be improved, that would indicate that deleting it would be the wrong way to go, as deletion should only be reserved for irredeemable articles. Deleting something that can be improved wastes people's time as especially in schools, and especially with high schools, it will be created again with verifiable sources, only to be deleted by people who would rather the encyclopedia not include these essential inherently notable institutions of public life, and so the page will be re-written again, prometheus-like until one day people realise that notability is in the eye of the beholder and these AFD discussions have been a waste of everyone's time.Egaoblai (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - What makes you think that school are "inherently notable institutions"? Based on the contested essay SCHOOLOUTCOMES? But a recent RFC there said Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.. The Banner talk 14:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - What makes you think that given time, schools can't be proved to be notable in their local communities? Also do you believe that all countries are inherently notable? How about all lead actors in hollywood movies? If so, why do you believe that?Egaoblai (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is borderline Crystal balling. We do not keep articles because they "one day might be notable". As to the rest, we are discussing this article, not any other. Now I can only assume (that like the rest of us) you have found no evidence of notability (else you would have added such sources to the article).Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not making wild predictions, but making educated assumptions about the place of schools within local communities and their resulting notability. To delete a ten year old article about a school based on your assumption that nothing notable can be found is bordering on vandalism. You are quite literally advocating for deleting knowledge because YOU don't like it. Are you involved in Education? are you involved in Malaysian education? Are you an expert in Chinese schools in Malaysia? If not, then it would be more appropriate for you to reserve your judgement to issues of verifiability rather than notability. Also, It is not my place to find information on the school, for one I do not speak Chinese and cannot search for those resources. It seems rather presumptuous to think that just because no notability in English (surprisingly enough the New York times hasn't done a piece on this school) that it doesn't exist. The thing about Wikipedia is that it's got information about everything, so I'm confused why people spend so much time trying to delete verifiable information about institutions of local interest and notability, rather than adding information about their interests. It's clear that many people here think that schools are worthy pages and notable in and of themselves, and that there has been a consensus to keep school articles, based on the idea that even if notability cannot be proved right this moment, it can be 99% of the time. Let's stop wasting time and leave these verified articles alone.Egaoblai (talk) 12:10, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I am nominating it because in 10 years this projected notability has not materialized. And verifiability does not trump notability. Nor has anyone rejected any non English sources, they have just asked for sources that establish notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This (in essence) is why I nominated it, Schools still have to be veritably notable. Yet in 10 years we have two primary sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I do not think it can be improved.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply because there is no source independent of the subject so fails WP:GNG. Egaoblai say 'strong keep', but these types of articles generally are a way to abuse BLPs, take a look at this [1] which I found. Private schools are business ventures in South Asia or South-East Asia and we need to be strict. Störm (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

ဲJust going to further comment on why this would be wrong to delete. The school passes the verfiable test, and I really don't believe that we can't find anything notable for a school that has been around since 1935. This article should not be deleted until we get some chinese and Malaysian voices to comment.Egaoblai (talk) 11:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets see, it has been 4 days and you have not added any, so if you cannot find them why should you asume anyone else can?Slatersteven (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. AFD is not a place to demand that others do work.
2. I do not speak Chinese or Malay and have no access to what I assume must be a plethora of resources about a school that is 80 years old.
3. Long standing consensus on schools is that they are presumed to be notable as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Egaoblai (talk) 06:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1, True, so why are you doing so?

2, Assumptions are not RS they are OR.

3, Please see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it does not say what you think it does.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we base articles on sources, not the assumption that there should be sources. We lack sources and so should delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment just to add to my previous points, I think it would be a collosal shame to start the next wave of deletions by targeting high schools in cultures that don't have a lot of English language speakers or publications in English. Also especially to delete schools such as this one which is apparently the only buddhist high school in the country and has been there for 80 something years. Here is a relatively recent source to show notability about the school's fundraising needs: it's independent, and the school is the subject: https://www.thestar.com.my/news/community/2008/04/11/phor-tay-still-short-of-rm10mil/

... and another, on the switch to co-ed. :https://www.thestar.com.my/news/community/2008/03/02/phor-tay-to-turn-into-coed-school/ and one on the school's 75th anniversary: https://www.thestar.com.my/metro/community/2015/05/19/school-to-host-exhibition-of-private-collectors-buddhist-antiques/
There is also this document written by a retired principal, that has a detailed history of the school and contains references, although they are in Chinese, which I do not read. http://research.thanhsiang.org/sites/default/files/attachment/BE2%20Mr%20Lye%20Voon%20Seong-Buddhism%20and%20Education%20-%20The%20Phor%20%20Tay%20Experience.pdf

Chinese Language page about the school: http://www.malaysianbuddhistassociation.org/index.php/2009-04-01-01-11-38/2009-04-18-06-17-12/480-2009-10-22-06-42-51.html?start=1 Egaoblai (talk) 08:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Both the precedent and consensus are not there any more and you know that. But you are still using the classic circular reasoning of keeping because in the past a school article was kept because in the past a school article was kept because in the past a school article was kept because in the past a school article was kept because in the past a school article was kept because in the past a school article was kept etc. Do you have any arguments based on content or policy? The Banner talk 17:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be misunderstanding the words precedent and consensus. Neither have been undermined by the highly controversial RfC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Funny that only people losing out on the RFC call it highly controversial. The Banner talk 14:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^{Babymissfortune} 23:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarise the argument here

1. The school is a high school and there has been a general agreement that school articles are to be kept. Wikipedia does not have deadlines for completion, see WP:NORUSH, and the assumption is that schools, as they are focal points for community will in almost all cases prove to be notable, thus deleting them is a waste of time, as they will spring up again. Schools are also places of local interest, see WP:LOCAL.
2. The school easily passes WP:V and has been mentioned in local media as a subject of a report. There are also sources in Chinese.
3. Wikipedia is well known to suffer from systemic bias WP:WORLDVIEW , given that this school is in Malaysia and part of a Chinese Buddhist community, we need to be extra vigilant here. I have explained above that consulting local people or at the utmost least, people who speak chinese and can find sources is needed. If this page is deleted without that, then that action will be contributing towards furthering this bias and towards geographic imbalance, see WP:IMBALANCE.
4. Arguments for deletion essentially come down to WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:IMPATIENT WP:OBSCURE and other unreasoned arguments.
5. When in doubt, don't delete. WP:DOUBT
6. Let's use common sense here, seeWP:COMMONSENSE, there's no WP:DEADLINE to articles and schools in the past have proven to be notable. Do we need to waste more time debating these deletions. It doesn't really serve the collection of knowledge to delete these articles.

Egaoblai (talk) 07:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, that consensus that you claim under point 1 is not there. It is a distant dream that schools are kept without sources to prove notability, what the believers in that "consensus" preach time and time again. The Banner talk 10:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say consensus (as that word has a specific meaning here) I said agreement, and likewise, there is no consensus that school articles should be summarily deleted either so arguing that there is a consensus to delete will not lead to a deletion based on the custom that admins have followed on Wikipedia not to delete them. I've laid out the case for keep in 6 points. If you disagree then feel free to, but being WP:IMPATIENT isn't valid as explained above.Egaoblai (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:V and WP:RS? The Banner talk 07:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What about them? If you have something to say, then say it. Egaoblai (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a cut and paste from one of the two only sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as this seems to be a long established school (existing since 1930s) and has a significant claim of being the only Buddhist school in Malaysia. I guess there may be sources in old newspaper archives or in history books. Schools are play a significant role in the local community. What's the harm in keeping it? I will do some research and improve the article if required. It is a pity to delete these.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could I have 7 days to improve the article please? I will be free this weekend and I can try to search for sources and work on it.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep this focused please?Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and possible move to Phor Tay Institution per WP:GNG. Seriously, in the midst of all this blathering on about SCHOOLOUTCOMES, did nobody bother to conduct a Google search? Phor Tay Institution, the parent organization of this school, and the school itself, have coverage in the following: several pages in this academic book, two pages in a 1992 edition of the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, a page in this paper produced by the Shri Lankan Ministry of Buddhasasana and Religious Affairs, this article from The Star about one of the school's exchange programs, this article from The Star about whether the school would go co-ed,this research paper on the history of the Institution's various schools published by the Than Hsiang Buddhist Research Centre, and an article (paywalled, "PENANG BANKER OPENS $300,000 BUILDING PENANG") from page 4 of the 26 April 1950 edition of Indian Daily Mail about the opening of a new building for the institution. I think this satisfies general notability. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I already found the STAR links, but the academic book is a good one too, I have added some of that to the articleand another one from Penang Monthly Journal. I'm not sure if merge is the correct thing, as the school and the institution are the same, but yeah, this AFD discussion is becoming ridiculous, and it's clear that the nominator or the deleters didn't WP:BEFORE Egaoblai (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be true, remarks from a political candidate made while canvassing is in my opinion not a reliable source conform WP:RS. The Banner talk 21:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this school is the only Buddist School in Malaysia and has sources and notability. angys (Talk Talk) 11:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.