Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rural Industrial Development Authority

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 to Majlis Amanah Rakyat. MBisanz ^talk 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rural Industrial Development Authority[edit]

This page meets Wikipedia’s criteria for deletion because the subject is not notable, the article is very short, provides no little context, has not been significantly improved for two years and likely never will be improved due to lack of notability Unionsoap (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this content is already available at Majlis Amanah Rakyat and as the RIDA ceased to exist in 1966 is is not likely that any evidence of notability will turn up. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it already has. See User talk:Hilary T#Rural Industrial Development Agency. You are estimating notability based merely upon what a stub article (which is by definition not comprehensive on a subject) says. Please expend the time and effort to actually put the article's title into some search engines. Wikipedia:Deletion policy only supports the deletion of stubs if they cannot be expanded, and more than just reading an article is required to determine that.
  Unionsoap is actually wrong on every point. There's clear context, and lack of improvement is not an indication of anything about a subject. (As can be seen by the fact that North Asia, an entire geographic region of the planet, took almost five years to improve beyond 2 sentences.) The only thing that it can indicate is an unwillingness on the parts of editors to write. There is no deadline for that. Notability is a function of in-depth coverage in multiple published works independent of the subject, and as proper research (which is what one is supposed to do at AFD, both before nomination and when contributing to a discussion) will reveal, this subject has it. (Hint: Start with the source already cited in the article, and follow footnote #128 in it. Then look up those sources.) The PNC is in fact satisfied here. Uncle G (talk) 01:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Unionsoap is actually right on the point that it is very short. Hilary T (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Majlis Amanah Rakyat - if one line is all we can come up with, and since there's a successor agency, mention it there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Majlis Amanah Rakyat per Biruitorul. It appears that this organisation was the forerunner of a notable organisation with a viable article, but there is very little to be said in this article that can be sourced. It appears logical to combine what little there is with the other article. If, in the future, more can be said or someone takes it upon themselves to research this further, there's no reason it cannot be split out again - but right now, a reader would be best served referring to the successor agency's article ~ mazca ^t|c 01:56, 13 April 2009 (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.