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) 20:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GEMS Jumeirah Primary School[edit]

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

Primary school through year 6. Review of gbooks and gnews fails to turn up 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) 08:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:36, 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]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy WP:ORG, the relevant notability guideline. Edison (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect of course, as usual. No reason for deletion without a redirect is given, or could be given. This should have been done without coming here. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An outstanding school which is covered as such in numerous sources. Warden (talk) 10:01, 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?} 15:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per longstanding consensus for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Redirect if a target can be found. Per the esteemed Colonel above, I am pleased to learn that there are international equivalents of the bogus 'Blue Ribbon School" designation that is wheeled out in defense of selected ordinary American schools from time to time. I don't think such bureaucratic ratings should come into play here either, but at least such a line of argument isn't US-centric, I'm happy to learn... I think we need an RFC to either confirm or deny the "Rule of Thumb" of presumed notability of high schools and presumed non-notability of elementary schools. Some people say there's no such thing — but you can't see air, yet it exists, too. I'm comfortable that this well-established consensus will be confirmed by the community. Things are starting to slide into "Lets Do Notability Testing for Everything" country at AfD though, views expressed both by Inclusionists and Deletionists... This defeats the purpose of having a rule of thumb, which is a time saving device that splits the difference between those wanting an expansive and those wanting a focused encyclopedia. But hey, if people really would rather have drama and time-draining fights over everything to the last ditch, who am I to argue... Carrite (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the notion that either an RfC or a revision to the notability guideline would be helpful to streamline discussion. Some editors including some sysops take strong positions as to what the consensus is, but I've not noticed sysops closing these AfDs as SNOWs on that basis. Either an RfC or -- better yet -- a guideline revision would seem to be in order. Ping me please if someone starts either.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI agree that there needs to be some sort of definitive statement either affirming the longstanding consensus or creating a brave new world in which thousands of school articles are weighed for sources. The latter outcome would be a logistical catastrophe in my view since the number of people participating at AfD and giving anything like serious attention to searching for sources is quite small and unlikely to increase — while the workload, so to speak, here could easily double. I will say for a fact that there is a consensus in place (virtually prohibitively high bar for elementary schools, keeping per se of high schools) — I chime in on school pieces regularly following this scheme and am with consensus of the close damned near always. Wikipedia DOES do automatic keeps of some things — scientific species names, inhabited villages, professional athletes, etc. A hard-and-fast rule along these lines on schools would be helpful. And if consensus really is that this is wrong and that each and every schools article needs to be weighed for reliable sources, that's fine. I'll just step back and watch the mayhem that ensues. The current system is a nice compromise between those who favor an expansive and those who favor a focused encyclopedia. High schools in, elementary schools out. Carrite (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful input. You should perhaps keep a copy of those thoughts on hand. I expect that they will have value in the future as well. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per usual. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
GEMS is the leading provider of for-profit education in Dubai and possibly in the UAE. This should be redirected and possibly merged to their article. (disclosure, I'll be taking my son there for a swimming lesson in around 15 minutes). Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 15:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to GEMS Education. --Tgeairn (talk) 00:52, 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.