Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of High Schools in South Africa


 * 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 14:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

List of High Schools in South Africa
I think this page should be removed as it is full of errors, is not linked from any significant pages and is made redundant by Category:Schools in South Africa. - Raker 11:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: See Categories, lists, and series boxes which clearly states that the generally accepted consenus is that "Wikipedia offers three ways to create groupings of articles: categories, lists, and article series boxes. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, and each is appropriate in different circumstances. These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other. Rather, they are most effective when used in synergy, each one complementing the other." Alansohn 03:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep yes it could be better but hey, it could be a heck of alot worse.-- Sea dog  .M.S  12:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lists of schools are valuable because many notable schools do not have articles. All the redlinks in this list are evidence of the fact that many notable schools do not have articles. If there are errors in the list, they should be fixed. The capitalization of the article's title should also be fixed. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 12:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - there is no "YP" in Wikipedia, please help us keep it this way. Michael K. Edwards 13:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The article might be redundant with Category:Schools in South Africa, but it is not a business directory. It is a list of internal links to articles on high schools in South Africa, arranged by province.  Uncle G 14:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are we supposed to take the lack of "YP" as a reason to delete a useful article?!?!?! Alansohn 11:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - most of the links are redlinks that have no articles. An encyclopaedia is made up primarily of articles, not links. Schools should be added as articles or stubs and categorised appropriately. - Raker 15:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the ability to include red links is one of the main assists of lists. Merchbow 15:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Merchbow. Lists are a vital tool to allow editors to see which articles need creating. -- Necrothesp 17:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, not redundant as it provides a basis for expansion. Gazpacho 18:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The list needs a lot of work: completion, disambiguation & creation of articles/stubs to take care of the redlinks. But it's still somewhat useful as is, and can become very useful with careful cultivation. Caknuck 21:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Lists not redundant with categories. I've started a new religion where I go around voting keep every time I see that non-argument. AndyJones 09:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite the meaningless rhetoric, lists and categories are not equivalent and do not -- and never can -- serve the same purposes. The fact that the nominator (and those voting delete, for that matter) doesn't even bother to refer to a supposed Wikipedia policy that bans lists, or articles with many red links, speaks strongly for the retnetion of this and other, similar articles. I don't see any of the "errors" that the nominator mentions. I do see many red links, which are NOT a justification to delete an article, serve as placeholders for future articles and will magically turn blue once the corresponding articles were created. The fact that lists CAN have red links is a point in their favor. If someone started a religion whereby adherents would vote to keep any article where the list vs. category argument is used, I'd sign up in a second. Any info on such a religion and details on what holidays are observed would be appreciated. Alansohn 11:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Violation of WP:NOT and List guideline combined. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. =Axlq 04:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: References to WP:NOT almost always merely mean "things I personally think don't belong here" and need far more detailed reference as to what aspect of WP:NOT you think are WP:NOT being satisfied by this article. Otherwise, we will WP:NOT know what we can do to address your concerns. Claims based on List guideline are a new one on me, but I see nothing whatsover in List guideline that would justify deletion of this particular article. Again, we need to see a far more meaningful explanation of what is not being fulfilled in this particular article. If anything, this list fulfills all three of the primary purposes of a list as specified in List guideline: Information, Navigation and Development; none of which are fully satisfied by a category. Alansohn 04:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Also, Axlq, will you please specify which WP:CSD criteria you are referring to? AndyJones 12:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm confused, the votes are to delete List of hospitals and keep this?  What is wrong with that picture?  Vegaswikian 23:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, we have WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools for missing highschools.--Rayc 02:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply 1) There are no entries for South Africa in WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools; 2) WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/High schools is completely lacking in organization, even for those areas that are covered, making it useless to see desired entries; and, 3) A list can contain ALL of the items in a category PLUS all of the missing articles. Categories AND lists; perfect together. Alansohn 03:26, 24 October 2006 (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.