Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taman Johor Jaya
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was - kept
Taman Johor Jaya[edit]
Non notable. This article is very detailed, but it gives no notable or specific informations. It has to my view actually no content. It describes a housing estates saying it has a mayor at the top for management. It has many subsections with some rows of shop houses, or rows of streets and back lanes with even some small restaurants, coffee shops, and shops. Some other subsections have some terraced houses... It could be any housing estate anywhere. It goes into a fine grain level of details, but this is like describing my personal street: who is interested but me and my neighbours. I suggest deletion. --Gtabary 09:59, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. It's poorly written, much too detailed, and fails to mention that it's Malaysian. It's also a township home to 16,000 people, unlike your average street. I suggest there are places to discuss such things first, most notably the article talk page, and Cleanup. Just because its written by User:Chan Han Xiang, who seems to be less than cordial from his talk page, doesn't mean the article should be stigmatized. JRM 12:11, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
- Comment. For clarification, I am not trying to stigmatize in anyway. I, independently of the author, question the value of the article. For now I believe it could be deleted. But it is the point of vfd: See what others think. If I am wrong : fair enough. :-) --Gtabary 12:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- It's your opinion, you can't be "wrong". :-) And thanks for clearing it up; I noticed this user has ruffled a few feathers, so I wanted to have clear that that's not what it's about. No harm intended. JRM 12:33, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
- Comment. For clarification, I am not trying to stigmatize in anyway. I, independently of the author, question the value of the article. For now I believe it could be deleted. But it is the point of vfd: See what others think. If I am wrong : fair enough. :-) --Gtabary 12:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment I have made a suggestion for improvement on the article's talk page. I agree that it is not good the way it is, but i think it could be condensed into a short informative piece.--MaxMad 12:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Given the population, it seems notable enough. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of WP articles on smaller places in North America and England. --LeeHunter 13:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep but needs massive cleanup and condensation. Wyss 20:07, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep it and cleanup. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:56, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Weak Keep. At it's size, it's pretty much equivalent to a town, and hence probably qualifies as being intrinsically notable under that idea. --Improv 22:05, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment. Following the many suggestions on this discussion I rewrote article completely trying to keep the local colour to it, with some mentions about what seams nice spots for people. What do you think ? Gtabary 10:35, 10 Dec 2004 (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.