Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aga Khan Primary School, Dar es Salaam


 * 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 Aga Khan Education Services. If anyone wants to specifically mention this in the target article, go ahead, but be aware that, as Epefleeche points out, unsourced claims may be removed at any time. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Aga Khan Primary School, Dar es Salaam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Primary schools are generally non-notable per wp standards, and subject to redirect. This seems to be one of those. Epeefleche (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 18:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete does not meet WP:GNG or school guidelines. Edinburgh  Wanderer  22:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Merge to locality or school governing body per longstanding consensus. I'm also expressing concern with the large numbers of school nominations at the moment; it can't be expected that all editors be able to respond to this mass act of deletionist ideology. &tilde;danjel [ talk | contribs ] 00:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Aga Khan Education Services per usual procedure for primary schools. --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect/merge as even the nominator wants to do. I'm not sure of the purpose of bringing these here instead of just boldly doing the merge/redirect, unless there's opposition to it.  DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the number of editors who wish to keep similar articles, and have !voted that way, and the absence from what I can see of a notability guideline that clearly gives the go-ahead on doing so, it seems to me that the less bold but more consensus-sensitive course is to make sure there is the opportunity for community input. Sysops can, of course, close any such AfD as a SNOW if consensus is clear.  Even though I've seen a general consensus to not maintain stand-alone articles in these cases as a general matter (with exceptions; editors  do differ on what makes a primary school notable), there is as we see even in this AfD often a difference of view as to whether the article should be a delete, a redirect, or a merge (even where the article lacks refs some editors call for this).  And I've seen well over a dozen closes in the last few days of similar AfDs, where the consensus was delete, reflecting the consensus at the AfD.  I'm happy to go with whatever the community-driven common consensus view is.  With a clear guideline, I would be happy to be bolder, but without it I am hesitant to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epeefleche (talk • contribs) 06:35, January 10, 2012‎


 * Merge with Aga Khan Education Services. Dahliarose (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Question. Hi Dahlia.  Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that we merge content that is not RS-supported?  I mention this because this article lacks any refs at all, let alone RS refs.  Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the procedure but there is certainly no requirement that content added to any Wikipedia article must be backed up in reliable sources. Even for "good" articles it's only a requirement that facts that can be challenged should be backed up by sources. Dahliarose (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As the article is not backed by any refs at all, I challenge the information in it. I would not think a merger of this unreferenced text would be appropriate, and the discussion I've seen on the general topic suggests that perhaps we shouldn't merge unreferenced text -- though I think to get a clear sense as to whether there is a consensus on this issue, more discussion would be helpful.  Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, and suggests that challenged unreferenced text is subject to deletion.  At the same time, if merger is the resolution, I would support the merger of all appropriate RS-referenced text.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are only a couple of lines of content, none of which is controversial. Not every statement has to be backed up by a reliable source. The sentence about the school motto is trivial and need not be merged. Dahliarose (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I had understood that all challenged information is required to be backed up by an RS ref, actually. It's not a big deal though, I would think -- any material information that can be RS sourced can be created at the target, with a proper ref.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.