Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danah International Science School


 * 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   Delete
 * With no further discussion occurring, the concensus here is obviously to delete. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 18:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Danah International Science School

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Almost no content, no refs iBentalk/contribs If you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 18:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  -- – Spaceman  Spiff  22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- – Spaceman  Spiff  22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions.  -- tedder (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Did a little bit of looking, I think this is a Phillipine school in Saudi Arabia. However, it should be deleted without prejudice against recreation unless something from a reliable non-primary source can be found. tedder (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as article fails WP:V and WP:RS. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  02:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have tracked down a source to meet verifiability concerns. High schools are notable and a Philippine high school in Saudi Arabia is sufficiently unusual to warrant mention. There is absolutely no reason to expect such a school to have sources in English and, to avoid systemic bias, we should give time for local sources to be found. TerriersFan (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the source, TerriersFan? I don't see it on the article or here. tedder (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor do I, now, since one of the sources turns out to be the same school! More work is needed to establish verifiability. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  00:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * 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.