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. --Coredesat 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kathmandu University High School (second nomination)[edit]

Kathmandu University High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article features no reliable independent sources, and I'm unable to find any. In the absence of such sources, there's nothing to base an article upon. I withdrew a previous AfD since it was suggested that sources exist but were simply difficult to find. Since then -- over three months ago -- there has been no significant change to the article, suggesting none of its previous supporters were able to discover sources either. Shimeru 09:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - as it stands does not meet WP:SCHOOL (proposed guideline) or WP:N. ^Khukri 10:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed my vote as per discussions with bduke below. I don't feel that as a school that it asserts notability and I can't find any reason for it being notable. Can we leave it as a stub, of course we can, but for how long? Cheers ^Khukri 11:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think this is excessive deletionism. As far as I know we do not have editors from Nepal. If we did, I am sure they would find press reports. The links are from the School's own web site, but nobody has suggested they are a hoax. They suggest it is one of the most notable Schools in Nepal. WP has plenty of articles that only have internal links. OK, what I am suggesting is not rigorously supported by the rules, but common sense suggests it be left, unless you have reasons to suppose it is a hoax or not notable. On notability, it clearly is, unless it is all a hoax. I do not think it is a hoax. Let it be for a while. I say, Strong Keep. A stub will do for now. The article will come later, probably when we get Wikipedians from Nepal. Nepal is not the US or Europe. Give it a break. --Bduke 10:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's doesn't seem to be a hint of a hoax as verifiable links exist, but why is it clearly notable, notable in Nepal for what reason? Until this is asserted in the article then I will leave my vote as is. About the article will come later the exact same was stated in the previous AfD, and it has not developed. A quick google look shows that it is not the only university in Nepal, Tribhuvan University seems like it was first, which would be the only thing I would think of it being notable. Cheers ^Khukri 10:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a university. All universities are notable. It is a High School run by the university. Many High Schools are generally considered notable and one run by the university in the capital seems so. Google is not likely to be a good source for Nepal. This is a developing country. Yes, it will take time for us to get editors in Nepal to write a decent article. What is wrong with the stub? It is usefull and makes no crazy claims. What do we really gain by deleting this? Does it help getting better information from Nepal? I do not think so. --Bduke 11:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is wrong with the stub is a lack of reliable sources. We do not encourage articles about people or businesses whose only reference is their own website, and we should not encourage articles about schools whose only reference is their own website. That isn't reliable, because it isn't independent -- and a lack of sources is an indicator of a lack of notability. (And of course they suggest it's one of the best schools in Nepal -- what else would they say about themselves?) When and if we do get editors from Nepal who can provide such sources, the article can be rewritten. Shimeru 16:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reasons established in the previous debate. Wikipedia is not operating on any kind of deadline, and the current sources are reliable enough to back what little information is currently presented in this article. (jarbarf) 20:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although this may one day be notable, it is not notable now. The guideline (WP:NOTABILITY) is there for a reason. If and when it becomes notable, with verified sources, I have no doubt it will be created again. Are we to include every single school that has the possibility of becoming notable? Fundamental Dan 22:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep why do we keep having to debate the same articles over and over? It's been debated once, let it rest at that. Jcuk 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to encourage development of Wikipedia's coverage of the Third World. Cloachland 03:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As always, per basic Wikipedia principles, we need a claim of notability, and supporting references. These are neither provided nor apparent, so the article fails our guidelines and must go. No objection to re-creation if our criteria can be met, of course. I also wish to say that I deplore Cloachland's attempt to cast this discussion as one of cultural diversity, which looks to me like a deliberate attempt to muddy a straightforward debate: no-one here, least of all I, is objecting to the article on the grounds of the school's location and culture, we are objecting to it because it ( like many many other school articles ) fails our basic criteria for retention. WMMartin 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point as I see it that it is more difficult to find sources in Third World countries and that the School's own site is adequate for the small amount of information that it is contained. The fact that a national university of Nepal (see the University's web site) runs a School make it notable. If we could access more information we would likely find they use it to train teachers in their Faculty of Education. --Bduke 21:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as not notable — MrDolomite • Talk 18:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep interesting and noteworthy. The remote location makes it so. Fred Bauder 23:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cloachland and Fred Bauder. Maybe there are some sources in Nepalese languages and maybe something about this school on new:Main Page or ne:Main Page? --Aude (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Bduke. There are only seven articles in Category:Schools in Nepal. When there are 100s in the category, I could appreciate an attempt to reduce the list down to the most notable, but at this stage the fact that someone has bothered to write an article about the school in itself demonstrates that it is a notable part of the countries infrastructure. I have just created the Dhulikhel article, and could only find WP articles relating to Kathmandu University for this township. I've found references to another high school in the region. As far as I can tell from some initial research, this is one of two high schools for a very large region. John Vandenberg 02:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I agree that the article would benefit greatly from additional information. I've checked for Nepalese newspapers at my local newsstand, but had little luck. But the affiliation with the country's national university confers notability. Alansohn 06:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The KUHS website is now up. John Vandenberg 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please the connections with university confer notability we would be at a loss to remove this yuckfoo 02:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find Brian's arguments quite convincing. The article does need some verifiable, reliable sources but I don't think that is a reason to delete an article on a subject from a region where online sources are understandably spotty. Perhaps someone will a get a chance to run it through Factiva. In the meanwhile, we seem to have sufficient to verify the school exists and I think that is enough to keep it for now. Sarah 05:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John Vandenberg. --Oakshade 04:45, 18 February 2007 (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.