Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karangturi

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 Merge→Semarang#Education. The arguments for deletion are valid as notability has not been established; thus I have included in the mention in the target section an instance of Template:Fact. However, as a potentially significant component of the Chinese Indonesian social experience, I am loath to completely wipe existence of the school from Wikipedia's pages, thus the merge & redirect. This does not preclude a bold action to delete the merged text from the target article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karangturi

Karangturi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails to satisfy WP:SCHOOL: not-notable, no third-party source, no national recognition, etc. The current form only gives trivial information, and Wikipedia is not a directory page. — Indon (reply) — 00:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Bduke 00:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable school. No references (third party or otherwise). Wikipedia is not toilet paper. --Merbabu 01:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, it is stated here that this school is a leading private school in Semarang. Isn't that notable enough? Moreover, it is not just an ordinary school. It sure is notable in Indonesia. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply to Siva. Not all that exists in this world can be said notable to have a wikipedia article. Not all schools are notable, otherwise we have millions of articles about schools only. Let us keep our hands in our already defined guideline: WP:SCHOOLS. The most important thing is the first principle of WP policy: there is no independent and non-trivial reliable source about the subject. Your link is a job advertisement for a position in that school, and that can't be recognized as a reliable source. Of course it uses ads slogans. The term "the leading bla..bla.." was written by the school's staff themselves. We need others who acknowledge the notability of a subject. Moreover, the link is a trivial information. It is not describing what the subject is. — Indon (reply) — 08:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment — Although this campus may well be notable, I can't support it because of the complete lack of references. — RJH (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Merbabu, as no assertion of notability, no way to know how it is notable, and no way to check as presently written, to see if it is notable. Also, it uses offensive, racist language: "invaded". Bearian 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm guessing usage of the word 'invade' was an innocent mistake due to English not being the first language. But I still vote delete. --Merbabu 21:43, 23 July 2007 (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.