Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GEMS Wellington Primary 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 redirect to GEMS Education. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GEMS Wellington Primary School[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Primary school. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up notable, substantial, non-passing, multiple, independent RS coverage. Convention with such schools is, as I understand it, that they do not generally warrant a stand-alone article. Delete (w/redirect to whatever makes sense would be fine) appears to be in order. Epeefleche (talk) 08:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no refs have been provided to show it satisfies WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 02:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to the locality or otherwise as we normally do. No argument against a redirect has been given, for the very good reason that there really is no rational argument that could be given. Epeefleche, I respect and agree with your efforts to remove from the encyclopedia standalone articles like this one, but why do not you simply redirect? The consensus would support you. Just be BOLD about it. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the key is that these should not be standalone articles. But there are a few editors who tend to vociferously disagree with me, in instances I thought were quite clear. Any reader of these AfDs has seen that. Also, despite your views, there is not a clear consensus that when articles such as this lose their stand-alone status, they should be redirected (rather than deleted). Some prefer deletion, and in fact consensus is for deletion not uncommonly. Also -- some editors, even when the article is completely uncited and challenged -- ignore the need for inline citations and !vote for merges. I think they are wrong, but they think otherwise perhaps. Given all the uncertainty, I don't choose to be Bold. I think it better in this case to allow editor input here, and have a consensus result, rather than foist my view on others.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A review of the sources indicates that they are adequate for our purposes and that the school is excellent, being in the top 10 schools in that country. Warden (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 15:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 15:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. If there's a good redirect target, that would also be a swell outcome from my perspective. Carrite (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect the Primary school is actually integrated in the same school as the secondary school and there probably should be either a merged article on GEMS Wellington School or a redirect to the GEMS article as they are the largest provider of for-profitprovate education in Dubai, if not the UAE. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To GEMS Education. Although that target is also an AfD candidate, it is the best target available. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2012 (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.