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. Sandstein 09:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SJKC Damansara

[edit]

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

Primary school. Appears to be non-notable. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Damansara, Selangor per standard procedure. Non notable schools are generally not deleted; instead, as demonstrated by 100s of AfD closures, they are redirected to the article about the school district (USA) or to the article about the locality (rest of the world). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable here.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for closer: if this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the ((R from school)) on the redirect page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce (talk | contribs) 01:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:GNG or current school guidelines.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (or userfy, or something). The article makes a claim for notability as "one of the first Chinese primary schools" in Malaysia. If this claim could be backed up and if the article could be expanded, I'm sure that notability would be satisfied. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:17, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you agree that as it stands the article does not meet our notability standards? Your keep !vote seems to be predicated on :if this claim could be backed up", but we don't keep articles on the bases of claims that are not substantiated by RSs, per our verifiability and notability guidelines. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, as an extension of what you're saying, if someone went through and deleted references from, say, Coca Cola, then that article could be AfD'ed because we must assume that all claims to notability must be untrue? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Are you asserting that someone deleted the refs for this article? If not, do you think that some 8-year-old should be allowed to create a fictitious article on a fictitious person, with fictitious facts that lack refs, and that such articles should be retained because "if the claim could be backed up it would meet our notability standards"? That's not how wp works. This is a fairly core part of wp policy, reflected in WP:VERIFIABILITY. But again -- you haven't answered my above query.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that, prior to bringing this AfD, that you:

raised your concerns regarding notability on the talk page of the article?
attempted to find sources on your own?
contacted the original author of the article to see if s/he had sources?

You know, all the stuff that you're meant to do per WP:Guide_to_deletion#Considerations and WP:BEFORE. As I have noted before (at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huaian_Foreign_Language_School and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mater_Dolorosa_Catholic_School_(South_San_Francisco)), I think you are being too hasty and not dedicating enough time to the wild abundance of school AfD's that you have put forward. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let' stick with this AfD, and your above statements. You haven't answered my questions, based on your statements. Are you asserting that someone deleted the refs for this article? And again -- you haven't answered my above query -- Do you agree that as it stands the article does not meet our notability standards? Your keep !vote seems to be predicated on :if this claim could be backed up", but we don't keep articles on the bases of claims that are not substantiated by RSs, per our verifiability and notability guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a rhetorical question, the point of which was to question whether you have or have not followed the process for deletion. So, my three points above, have you done any part of the due process in regards to this AfD (or in fact any of the ~50 school article AfD's that you've proposed)? ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to discuss that. But you've ignored my queries, posed first. See my prior post. Your !vote and your comments appear, to me, to be diametrically opposed to each other.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetorical question. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was not at all a rhetorical question. You !voted keep. But your rationale supporting your !vote suggest that you do not believe that the article is, as it stands, notable. I do not understand the discrepancy. Please explain it, as it may help the closer. As to your question -- I routinely follow wp:before.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With there being major issues with 10 of the ~50 school AfD's that you've put up, I'm not seeing evidence of your following any aspect of WP:BEFORE. In fact, considering there was 2 minutes between one nomination and this nomination, I think that you didn't do anything at all besides press the XFD button in twinkle. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 03:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your question. You continue to ignore mine, which bears directly on your !vote at this AfD. You've now also suggested that you think I am a liar, which some people might consider perhaps slightly less than civil. I would appreciate it if you would: a) answer my question; and b) try to perhaps limit your communication with me to more civil discourse. Much appreciated.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly a notable school being one of the first Chinese primary schools in Malaysia. With so many school AfDs going through at present I've not had time to investigate further but there will no doubt be other sources available. Dahliarose (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would normally trust that an experienced AfD nominator would have done some prior checking, but the nature of these nomination makes it highly unlikely. In most cases, we are able to compensate by doing checks ourselves, but not at the rate of 230 a day on similar subjects. this is an abuse of process, and attempt to force deletion by not permitting the time to consider he articles properly. In any case, the absolutely minimum would be redirect, and the nom has not here or in any other of his 100 or so school nomination in the last two weeks given any argument against that, and I think neither has anyone else (Indeed, I find it rather hard to imagine any possibly rational argument. Myself, I doubt that being one of the first anythings is as notable a being the first, but I suggest nominating these at the rate or perhaps one or two a week, so they can be investigated properly. Keep, because there's a decent chance of notability and it needs further consideration. DGG ( talk ) 07:53, 11 January 2012 (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.