Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of oldest Chinese schools in the Philippines


 * 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The result was   Nomination withdrawn. v/r - TP 01:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

List of oldest Chinese schools in the Philippines

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP is not for "excessive listings of statistics". This seems like a perfect example of that.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  01:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination, due to the discussion below.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  16:16, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete totally unsourced, doesn't seem to really establish the notability of this intersection (age and Chinese schools in the Philippines) Perhaps if there's a list of schools in the Philippines or something like that some of this might be useful and could be merged there, but it would need to be sourced. OSbornarfcontribs. 02:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/move/etc per below. OSbornarfcontribs. 16:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not done yet with this page. Can you please give me more time for me to include sources or references for this page? Roadrunner272008 06:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner272008 (talk • contribs)
 * References were now added. --Roadrunner272008 07:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner272008 (talk • contribs)
 * Hi there Roadrunner. First off, I appreciate the work you've done to get the sources you added. Unfortunately, those aren't the kind of sources this article needs. You've added stuff that shows that these schools exists. OK, but why do we need a list of the oldest schools in the Philippines in the first place? Why are these types of schools notable enough for a list, when they don't even have their own article?  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry. 随便你们吧. Roadrunner272008 11:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roadrunner272008 (talk • contribs)
 * I think the nom is missing the forest for the trees. It is correct that a list organized by how old the school is would be unnecessary.  However, we seem to have a lot of content on Category:Chinese schools in the Philippines (something like 46 articles in total), and this is apparently the only list on that subject (though it is not yet comprehensive of all of our articles).  So what I'm going to do is what should have been done rather than start an AFD: remove the problem by moving it to List of Chinese schools in the Philippines, tag for expansion so the list can include all such notable entries, and request this be speedy closed.  I leave it to the list's future editors to determine if there is some encyclopedic merit in including non-notable schools in the list, and to determine how to reorganize the table.  postdlf (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I had noticed that category (its the first result for a search of "chinese schools" & "Philippines"), and I'm not averse to an early closure, but I'll ask you the same question I asked the article's creator: why do we need a list when the overall topic isn't notable enough for its own article? FWIW, I have been treating this from the beginning as though the "oldest" wasn't there, because I don't think it makes that much of a difference.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  13:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not a meaningful way of analyzing it. Chinese school has an article, Education in the Philippines has an article, and something like 46 of the Chinese schools in the Philippines have articles.  This then is just an index of those schools subdivided by country of location, or, viewed another way, a list of schools in the Philippines subdivided by type, both of which are a standard and obvious way of organizing things when the lists would be too large if not subdivided.  That particular indexing group doesn't have to be notable in its own right to justify the list any more than it does for a category, and if a category is appropriate for navigation and grouping, then per WP:CLN a list is as well unless there is something about the topic that makes it particularly inappropriate for a list format (which there isn't here).  postdlf (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead and withdraw my nom, pending your reply, but I don't think you're looking at the notability of lists the right way. WP:CLN, and more specifically, WP:AOAL, only says that the list "...may include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles" (emphasis mine). It says nothing about allowing overall un-notable topics to remain. You say that the "particular indexing group doesn't have to be notable in its own right to justify the list", but WP:LISTN clearly says that "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines" (link mine). I believe that's pretty conclusive that a list is not a category, and that the intersection of "Chinese schools in the Philippines" still needs to be argued notable to remain.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  14:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTDIR states "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Wikipedia functions as an index or directory of its own content." WP:LISTN is at best incomplete; it does not represent full practice and consensus regarding all kinds of lists, particularly navigational ones.  Does it really make sense to you that we would be forbidden from splitting a lengthy list of articles into subdivisions by country if we could not demonstrate that each -by country grouping was the subject as a group of significant coverage?  Applying notability guidelines in that manner wouldn't accomplish anything constructive: it would force us to maintain lists that were far too large if we couldn't demonstrate "significant coverage" of very obvious indexing methods ("sorry, List of Finnish painters isn't notable, you'll have to merge those back into the whole list of painters by nationality"), or make the subdivisions incomplete if we could demonstrate that one grouping was notable but not another ("sorry, deaths in 2010 is notable, but not deaths in 2007").  So yes, the best and most reasonable approach, and the one most supported by consensus, and the one reflected by WP:CLN as a whole (which addresses lists as a method of grouping articles), is to treat lists of articles as a navigational system complementary to categories and templates.  postdlf (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See also WP:SALAT: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link." There is no indication that the ways in which we "limit the scope" must themselves be notable; it is instead encouraging us to apply reasonable subdivisions of the topic, first by subdividing a list into sections, and then by splitting those sections off into separate lists because of size concerns.  postdlf (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you can see the irony in pointing to a section titled "Wikipedia is not a directory" ...to say that Wikipedia is a directory. Anyway, I think I see where you're coming from more, although what seals it for me more then anything is realizing after a quick search that the unsourced "Chinese schools", one road of this intersection, is actually a decently covered topic in some outside sources. I think I'm gonna head over there and clean that one up... And I hope you didn't think I was just dragging this discussion out for its own sake - lists on non-notable topics has long been a pet peeve of mine and if I'm wrong, I want to make sure I'm wrong. :P  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  15:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * (Upon reading the second part of your message) Okay, I'm sure now.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  15:47, 2 December 2011 (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.