Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utusan Borneo

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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 08:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Utusan Borneo

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

Delete This article is self-promotion and does not cite any outside sources. See Wikipedia:Spam USchick (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my view the subject is notable. The notability is both inherent and derived from significant coverage in reliable sources. On the inherent side, it is the first fully Malay-language newspaper in Sabah, which is a significant development for a state in which Malay is the official language. A broadsheet newspaper with circulation across two Malaysian states (Sabah and Sarawak) and one foreign country (Brunei) could scarcely not be notable. On the coverage side, the article doesn't have as many sources as I'd like. The one source given is clearly significant coverage. News searches show there is other coverage out there. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to expand the article with many more sources because most of the coverage seems to be in Malay language. Obviously, much if not most of the coverage of this Malay-language newspaper is in Malay. That can be seen in the raft of articles on the back pages of a google news search. As for the nominator's reasons for deletion: (1) The article as it existed a couple of days ago was a little bit spammy. But it's not any more -- it's just not referenced as well as it could be. (2) "does not cite any outside sources" is plainly wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject is notable, please explain in the article what makes it notable and include the foreign language sources. There is no requirement for sources to be in English. USchick (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're absolutely right that there's no requirement for English language sources. Unfortunately, my Malay language competence isn't good enough for me to confidently review the Malay language sources and use them to support material in the article. But (a) we know there is significant coverage in English; and (b) there is more coverage in Malay. The article doesn't need to be in a state of perfection to survive AfD. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep This article is not an advertisement masquerading as an article, nor contains external link spamming and has no references that appear to have the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced. It is thus not an example of Wikipedia:Spam. The article would be better with some more references, but if it can be improved by editing, it should be rather than being deleted per WP:ATD Francis Bond (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I try not to do "per" !votes, but Mkativerata said about everything I would have liked to on the subject. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2011 (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.