Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Alternate 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   merge to Golden Secondary School. Yes, this is the wrong venue, but consensus to merge is clear. No point closing this procedurally to have another discussion just to repeat what has been said here. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 09:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Golden Alternate School

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

To quote the article in its entirety: 'Golden Alternate School is a program within Golden Secondary School that provides additional services to "at risk" students.' That's it. Seems to me that this a classic case for deletion and merging into the Golden Secondary School article (which itself needs some extra text), but not being au fait with the Canadian educational system I nomnate in the hope that others can give more expert opinions. Emeraude (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge - I agree. Content of this article should be added to Golden Secondary School, while that article needs additional text and references. Doomsdayer520  (Talk|Contribs) 11:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge as above. This is not even a school, just a program, and there's no evidence that it's independently notable.  No need for a separate article.  --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  15:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  15:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Golden Secondary School which badly needs more content. Not independently notable, but this is a case where the nominator should have followed WP:BEFORE and just boldly merged the page without coming here. I would add that the nomninator's "deletion and merging" is not a valid action since the history must be preserved for GFDL reasons. TerriersFan (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect as per above. Polarpanda (talk) 16:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect since it is just a program it should be covered in the already-too-short parent article. JBsupreme (talk) 17:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per above, no need to spend more words then the article itself has. Bonewah (talk) 21:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the nominator suggested murging, I believe we're in the wrong process here. Merging does not involve deletion at any point. See WP:MERGE. Because attribution needs to be retained, redirecting after a merge is the proper course of action. - Mgm|(talk) 12:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - as far as I can see the word 'murging' doesn't hitherto exist. However, I think that it is a delightful word which should be given a meaning. I suggest that we adopt it and define it as 'the combined act of merging and redirecting an article'. TerriersFan (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As nominator, I confess to ignorance of the process - apologies - but it seems there is consensus on merging as a solution. Perhaps someone with the know-how will do this. I also support the above suggestion: 'murging' rhymes with 'purging' and is clealry a linked concept. Emeraude (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2009 (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.