Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of high schools in Alberta


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 09:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

List of high schools in Alberta

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

long-winded list - what little of this information is useful could be found/placed elsewhere. *Userfy This is a bit listcruft-y. Better suited as a category than a list. If the user thinks a list is necessary, I would say one should remake this into a List of School Districts in Alberta. Each school district page should have full listings of the schools. In any case, there is no reason to lose the work if it can be made into something useful. SMSpivey (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Collection of pointless information. Gawd, who cares LOL Aurush kazemini (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do. No reasonable deletion rational provided in nomination that I can see. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  00:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep In light of the point DHowell makes, I am moved to say that if the question is between deletion and keeping, I'm going for Keep. Keeping lists for all fifty US states, but removing one from a Canadian province (when they are basically equivalent concepts) would be a form of American-centric systemic bias. And, I'm not down for that. If we delete this, they all should come up for AfD. Theoretically, I feel like all of them should be altered to contain only secondary schools or school districts, as there seems to be a consensus that middle, elementary, and grade schools aren't notable and their addition to the list would constitute a directory instead of a list of notable things within Wikipedia. So... fix 'em all! SMSpivey (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I never gave a rationale for deletion, nor have I ever supported full-on deletion of this article. Don't delete per me. I only said to userfy or keep. SMSpivey (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep No deletion rationale has been provided. Edward321 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of pointless lists WP:INDISCRIMINATE.  There is no entry for List of high schools in Ontario for example.  Is Wikipedia supposed to maintain a list of every high school in every province, state, or territory in every nation on Earth?  If not, what's so special about Alberta? SmashTheState (talk) 17:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's an inverted WP:OSE argument, which is one of those arguments to avoid. Just because we don't want a user to create an unsorted list of every high school on the planet does not mean that we shouldn't relax and let them create a finite, well-maintained list of high schools in their province. Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. First of all, a perfectly good deletion rationale was clearly stated --- it wasn't eloquently stated, you may disagree with it, but it's there. I can't imagine why a high school is notable in and of itself.  There are probably hundreds of thousands of high schools on this continent, and most of them don't differ all that much.  The information in List of high schools in Alberta is perfectly suitable for a category listing.  It could be found on other sites (Yahoo! for instance).  And, if a high school is notable, add it to the existing or relevant sub-category (for expample, ). Find a better way to organize this information, or just delete it entirely. Bolwerk (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So you accept "long-winded" as a valid deletion rational? because we know that a list and a Cat can exist togeather without one being the cause of the others deletion. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  04:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * These arguments are plain unfounded. That another site has this list is not a consideration for whether we should have it... we are not a book of unique information... we are a comprehensive encyclopedia.  Otherwise we could begin deleting all of our featured content if it is already covered on Encarta, Brittanica or World Book Encyclopedia.  And your opinion on high school notability is a minority one, and has been well rehashed over and over; see the essay at Notability (high schools).  And finally, to have an article on wikipedia a subject does not need to be "all that different".  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. See, WP:DIRECTORY.  It needs to be turned into a category, as SMSpivey points out. —Drvoke (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. High schools are generally considered notable (see WP:OUTCOMES); thus this is not an indiscriminate directory, but a list of potential article topics. If it is a "long-winded" list, that is a reason to split, not to delete; though I don't find this list too "long-winded" or too broad at all—List of high schools in California is longer. The lack of a List of high schools in Ontario is only because Wikipedia is not finished, not because such a list doesn't belong; we do have similar lists for all fifty states of the United States, so I don't see why there shouldn't be one for each province of Canada. Also the existence of a category, or "should be a category" is not a reason to delete a list; see WP:CLN. This list serves all three of the purposes of lists in Wikipedia: information, navigation, and development. DHowell (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.   —• Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DHowell. List of notable topics that complements a category. It is not indiscriminate. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per SMSpivey Raven.sorrow (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - informative, discriminate. It does not duplicate a category because it includes red-linked schools. No valid deletion reason was given. TerriersFan (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * delete I agree that this should be a category and not a page on its own.Strummingbabe (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep provides encyclopedic information of a finite, discriminate nature. Categories have limitations to their usefulness, such as not allowing other data than the title of the article (or listas parameter) to be viewed by the reader.  List articles can grow to include sortable pivot tables with other information, such as year established, current status, number of students, type of institution (private, parochial, public), et cetera.  Catgegories just show a bunch of aricle titles, and can not include redlinks for articles that are needed. Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:47, 17 January 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.