Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of law schools in Canada


 * 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 of the debate was keep. --Ezeu 06:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

List of law schools in Canada
Listing per consensus at Education WikiProject. Maintaining this list is error-prone, and archaic, and stale. Wikipedia is not a junkyard. Delete Ardenn  16:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted, this is duplicated by Category:Law schools in Canada. Ardenn  17:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete, although given the number of law schools in Canada and how easy it is to verify, I don’t see how maintaining it would be “error prone”. Lists are not encyclopedic unless they are a necessary part of an article (to better explain or describe the significance of the article or to contribute to a greater understanding of the article). If including such a list in the article itself would make the article itself unwieldy, then creating a separate "article" for the list is fine. In this case, the list simply duplicates the function of a category that already exists. This list does not do anything to help better understand the main subject matter or the significance of the subject. As it serves no such purpose, I consider it listcruft. Just because Wikipedia is not paper does not mean it is a place for trivia or indiscriminate lists of things, per WP:NOT and WP:5P. Agent 86 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty here that's more than a list; can easily be useful for prospective law students. Very notable topic. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, the category is fine. --Coredesat talk 22:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep lists and categories are seperate entities which do different jobs. The fact you have a category to my mind makes a list all the more neccessary. Jcuk 23:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This list justified its existence by being more than just a collection of links.  I cleaned up and made this more evident by moving some prose to the top and some to individual schools, and sectioning the list by type of degree based on the data already in the list.  GRBerry 01:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep A completely valid list. Chicheley 01:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep perfectly valid list, easy to ascertain, all are notable. SM247 04:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The notability of the items on the list is not in question. The usefulness of the list is. --Coredesat talk 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I would suggest that law schools are quite notable and as such a list of them in a particular jurisdiction is entirely valid (for another one, see List of law schools in Australia. SM247 My Talk  05:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per comments above, a valid list. Yamaguchi先生 08:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep this valid, verifiable, maintainable and useful list. Silensor 22:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete people keep saying they maintain these lists, but who actually does? As soon as the author loses interest, they're worthless. --Bombycil 04:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm pretty sure degree-awarding law schools don't just start up overnight. SM247 My Talk  23:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The list contains useful general information that cannot be conveyed through a category.  The contents of the list are quite static, so I can't really understand the comments that have been made about the list being "error prone" or hard to maintain.  --Skeezix1000 12:21, 5 July 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.