Talk:Little Angels' School

Untitled
This page should not be deleted as it is about a major institution of Nepal. I think it has a right to be represented in Wikipedia like its competitors (Budhanilkanta School, etc). To delete it would be extremely unfair to the students and a disgrace to the school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shane291 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CSD A7 does not apply because the article is about a school. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Whether deleting the article would be "unfair to the students and a disgrace to the school" is an opinion, reflecting a point of view, and does not come under any of Wikipedia's criteria for notability. Does the school have significant coverage in reliable independent sources? I have made a brief search and have not found any independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So you can't establish verifiability? Sounds to me like there exists a case to make at AFD, as soon as an admin (which I am not) clears the speedy delete request. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, would the reviewing admin please consider WP:SNOW in deciding on the speedy delete request. If the article is unlikely to survive AFD, do we really need to have that discussion? --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not really what WP:SNOW is for. If there is a clear and obvious consensus to delete the article (i.e. a large number of delete requests in AfD without any disagreement) then the AfD can be closed early as SNOW. However it shouldn't be used in the argument, "It's bound to be deleted, so delete it anyway". —  Tivedshambo   (t/c) 14:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A matter of truth
What you have to understand is that Nepali schools DO NOT consider it an important issue to set a digital footprint. Since most of the Nepali people don't even have access to electricity, let alone Internet and we are currently suffering from 14 hours of power cuts daily, it should not be surprising that LAS has not established itself firmly on the Internet. For those who suspect whether this school exists, search for Little Angels School in Facebook, Hi5 or yahoo Groups. I don't think all those people there would be covering up for a nonexistent school.

As of notability, this school IS counted among the top ten in Nepal. Any Nepali would tell you that, but unfortunately the Internet can't.

You say every school has GCEs. Not in Nepal. THE BC list shows at most 15 institutions in Nepal that provide A-levels. Isn't it a sign of credibility that LAS is one of them? This talk of authenticity is absurd. Just because a school can't flaunt itself on the Net doesn't question its authenticity.

So please don't make harsh decisions to delete this page. Think before classifying LAS as a phantom school or a school of "questionable authenticity".

Shane291 (talk) 12:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The deletion discussion is leaning towards establishing verifiability. Feel free to follow the discussion at its project page. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am working hard that it not be deleted, I don't see how it can be at this point, your pointing out the sources below was very helpful. It is true that the world is not as small as we believe it is while at the same time it is smaller than we would like for it to be. Drawn Some (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates
The random mixture of dates in the Gregorian and Nepalese calendars is rather confusing. *Dan T.* (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. The problem is if you don't know the month in one of the calendars (or even the exact date for particular months) then you can't convert with certainty. I would like to know how to resolve this and am open to suggestions.  Gregorian dates seem to be standard on this Wikipedia. My closest experience with this is in genealogy with old and new style dates. Drawn Some (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's what you need:

Gregorian Year - 57 years = Bikram Samwat Years. This works when talking about years only and not days or months. All the records in this article can be converted in such manner. For eg: The current BS year = 2066 Gregorian Year = 2009 Difference: 57 Hope it helped 202.52.246.37 (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.52.246.37 (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But when it's referring to school years, one needs to know what months the school year runs between; this might happen to be within one calendar year in the Bikram Sawat system, but stretch across two calendar years in the Gregorian system. For instance, normal U.S. school years go from September (or late August) through May or June, and are referred to as "the 2008-09 school year".  But if it's a Jewish school and its school year is entirely within a Hebrew Calendar year, one might call it "the 5769 school year". *Dan T.* (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The BS years are NOT the same as Gregorian years, they start and end at different times. Incidentally, it's a MUCH older calendar. Drawn Some (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not only school years but calendar years too which cannot be converted as simply as stated above. Since a Bikram Samwat year does not start and end in the same Gregorian year one formula (such as subtract 57) cannot give the correct equivalent for the whole year. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also it is closer to 56.7 years than 57 years. Drawn Some (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Little Angels' School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080424055426/http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=103430 to http://www.kantipuronline.com/kolnews.php?&nid=103430

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Verifiability
This articles seems to not provide adequate sources to many statements and the sources seem to be either primary of outdated. The wording of the article also seems to be promoting the subject. This article should either be rephrased and updated or edited for verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.163.182.251 (talk) 09:01, 7 November 2021 (UTC)