 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 March 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of the school building be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Maldives may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | It is requested that a logo be included in this article to improve its quality. For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images. (November 2016) Wikipedians in Maldives may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
 | It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Asia may be able to help! |
Tags
editI have removed what I deem to be unjustified tags. Notability was established at AfD, subject to the current DRV. I see no advertorial content nor any thing that needs cleaning up. There is none of the usual claims about it being 'the best college for this' or 'leading institution for that'; it states facts without making any claims about the institution. If the page lacks balance then add balancing sourced content. TerriersFan (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Notability was not established, there is absolutely nothing in the way of secondary sources other than a few appearances on lists in a lengthy report on education. An article about a company which sources mostly that company is little better than an advertisement. And those tags are a request to add "balancing sourced content" so removing them on that basis is nonsensical. Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, notability was not established at the AFD. AFD only displayed some users saying basically, "It's inherently notable, even though nothing is supposed to be inherently notable, and there are probably sources but I can't be arsed to find them to prove notability, and there's consensus supporting this but I can't be arsed to link to it or prove it in any way." On the other hand, the AFD did seem to provide an impetus to actually improve the article, which I suspect would have been a permastub had I not brought it to AFD. --Atlantima (talk) 01:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)