Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Kenya 2


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

List of schools in Kenya
This list was deleted on June 21, 2006 in an 8-2 vote that showed a strong consensus that this list did not contribute anything that could not be accomplished by categories. I have just discoverd that almost exactly one month later, Kappa, with apparent full knowledge of the original consensus (as evidenced by a comment he made on the article's talk page), decided to disregard the will of the community and recreate the page, a move I personally consider to be irresponsible if he realized the prior debate result before creating the page. All the reasons for deletetion from the first arguement (found here) still apply, plus the additional negative of a recreation undertaken in violation of clear consensus (though this is not a speedy candidate because it is sufficiently different from the original version). Indrian 22:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is significantly different from the previous version? If it was a lst of schools in Kenya then, and a list of schools in Kenya now, it seems like nothing has really changed. Erring on the side of caution, I'll say Strong Delete instead of a speedy one. --Daniel Olsen 22:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally agree with your point, but the makeup of the list has changed, so I think it would be too controversial to speedy it, which is why I brought it here. If an admin disgrees, then I certainly have no problem with it being speedied. Indrian 23:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Personally I prefer categories over lists, but I don't see any necessity to delete it either. But to be fair, if this list is deleted, then the same should apply to List of schools in Germany and most other similar lists. Julius Sahara 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (and the Germany list too even while it contains only gymnasiums and didn't yet expand elsewhere). Such lists tend to grow w/o regard to notability, just to cover everything and result in one line stubs "xyz is a school in abc". If Wikipedia implements some database mechanims schools may be good candidate to be covered completely but current structure does not fit. Pavel Vozenilek 23:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, gymnasium is the German for a type of school. Delete anyway, and replace with category.  Emeraude 23:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I do know. Pavel Vozenilek 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Usual reason. Lists and categories serve different purposes. Can't understand why people think categories supersede lists when they blatantly don't. -- Necrothesp 02:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The initial AfD is a classic example of a terribly argued justification for deletion, followed by a series of unreasoned votes for deletion that use such inspired arguments as "schoolcruft" and "red-link farm". Without any valid justification referring to Wikipedia policy, this article was deleted. The article was recreated, addressing the limited number of minor legitimate issues raised in the initial AfD. Despite the meaningless rhetoric in the initial AfD, 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 any Wikipedia policy that bans lists, or articles with many red links, speaks strongly for the retention of this and other, similar articles. While there are a few red links, these are NOT a justification to delete an article, but can 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. This article groups the various schools into categories, yet another function that categories cannot fulfill. Any AfD (see the initial attempt) that uses any form of the word "cruft" is a strong argument for a Keep. Alansohn 05:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: In violation of policy, the above comment was deleted, and has been restored as strokethrough, which I assume was intended. My comments aim specifically at the issue of whether or not this article should be retained. I would suggest that any discussion regarding the deletion of this or any other list make specific reference to List guideline that would justify deletion of this particular article. We need to see a far more meaningful explanation of what is not being fulfilled in this particular article under this or any other policy, and none has been provided. 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 06:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is nothing I can find in the AfD policy that says I cannot delete my own comment if I so desire. I realized after reading your comments a second time that they were not as harsh as I thought and removed my message asking you to be more civil, having concluded that you were perfectly civil and I was in error.  If my reading is incorrect, then cite me the rule saying that comments cannot be deleted and then restore the comment again.  Otherwise, just let it be.


 * Hmmm, I see you feel rather strongly on this issue, but in your haste to bash the original AfD, you appear to have gotten a little carried away. You are correct that policy does not dictate that there be no redundant lists and categories, but that does not mean that being redundant is not bad form.  When a list is not doing anything that a category cannot do, it is generally not that useful to have the list as well.  One reason for this is just plain old efficiancy.  Doing the same thing two ways can lead to confusion and contradictory organization.  Second, categories would have absolutely no point if we just used lists, so the fact that the category system was created after people started making lists implies that these were intended to replace lists in some areas.  Finally, despite what you have said above, redlinks can be a very bad thing.  Allowing for redlinks may enocurage the creation of things that do not belong on wikipedia, which is why categories are a much nicer way of corraling this information.  Also, redlinks are just plain ugly, and while some may be filled, they will not all necessarily be so.  If redlinks are so good, why do we not create disambiguation pages for every possible topic that can have more than one entry even when only one entry exists with an article?


 * Furthermore, the original nomination was never about schoolcruft as was made very clear in the nomination itself. There were votes that were cast solely on the issue of the school debate, but I never went there and still do not intend to here.  Also, to say that categories and lists cannot ever serve the same purpose as you say above is a most ridiculous statement.  If a category contains all the articles on wikipedia that pertain to, say, Cincinanti Reds players and a list exists that does the same thing with no redlinks or annotations and with the same organization, then the list and category are exactly the same.  I would avoid absoultes if I were you.  I am not claiming that this list is exactly the same as the category of the same name, but your claim that lists and categories can never be the same is just not true.  As for your other point that a categories cannot group these schools into categories (that just sounds silly on its face now, doesn't it), this is also not true since it is possible to have subcategories.  I do not harbor any illusions of convincing you to change your vote, as anyone who makes blanket statements like "Any AfD (see the initial attempt) that uses any form of the word "cruft" is a strong argument for a Keep" is not interested in looking beyond shallow surface considerations, but I am hoping to illustrate that there is room for debate on this issue as there are with many others.  If there was really no other way to vote on this article, then people would not do so.  Try to assume a little more good faith and tone down your own rhetoric a little too please. Indrian 06:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are picking up any issues regarding rhetoric, they are solely based on the tone of your nomination. While I appreciate your narrowly-worded baseball scenario where a list and a category would be equivalent, there are many situations that simply cannot be handled by categories, red links being among them. I appreciate your aesthetic issues with red links, and your assumption that "the category system was created after people started making lists implies that these were intended to replace lists in some areas", as well as your worries about potential confusion. However none of these are valid justifications to delete this or any other list. Lists and categories serve different purposes that work in synch with each other. Again, we need to seem a well-argued case that makes reference to a Wikipedia policy that would justify deleting this list. You have failed to do so in your initial nomication, in the current nomination, or in any of the replies included here. Aesthetic issues or fears of red links run amok are not valid justifications. Alansohn 06:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I agree that I was a bit sloppy in looking to official policy the first time around, perhaps relying too much in the language of my nomination and arguements on "gut instinct" to pave my way, and I applaud your efforts to dig deeper than these gut impressions.  Now I hasten to point out that this is actually the way AfD works in 9 out of 10 cases, as admins do not usually get to the substance of debates and just look at the votes.  Not a justification per se, but an observation on life.  As for an official policy arguement, I am prepared to make one.  I understand you will probably disagree with me and not change your mind, but I do not see this as a problem since many interpretations are valid and yours is not at all out of line.


 * According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory or a yellowpages that merely exists to list what institutions exist and where they are located. Now obviously, the organization of articles is excepted from this rule, but when it comes to listing insitutions this line is easily blurred.  A list of this kind with a lot of redlinks is serving as a directory; a list with no redlinks is redundant with a category and therefore not needed for organization.  While this list is annotated, the annotations do not enhance the organizational structure in a meaningful way in my opinion.  It is actually conceivable to have lists of nearly anything that are vaguely connected and make a few annotations, but this does not seem a sound way to build an encyclopedia.  Perhaps this would be indescriminate collecting of information, also in violation of policy, but I am not sure.  I remain unconvinced that this list is doing anything that a category system cannot. Indrian 07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An appeal to What Wikipedia is not is a step in the right direction. However, this article does not meet any of the negatively listed categories: 1) Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons, 2) Genealogical entries or phonebook entries, or 3) Directories, directory entries, TV/Radio Guides, or a resource for conducting business. Given the equivalence of lists and categories for many purposes, an argument to delete a list on this basis would be an equally valid reason to delete a corresponding category. We have been given a clear set of rules on this exact subject at List guideline, none of which provides a justification to delete this article. More specifically, Categories, lists, and series boxes details 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." It seems that we have no choice but to keep this article based on these explicit guidelines. Alansohn 07:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you on two counts. I do feel this is a directory and that this term is loose enoguh to encompass a list like this.  I figured you would disagree and as stated before agree it is open to interpretation, but there you have it.  As to your other points, I completely disagree.  The list and category policies are just guidelines.  While they do have persuasive authority and are valid to cite to in an arguement to keep, they do not have controlling authority and do not leave us "no choice but to keep this article." Indrian 16:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While I thoroughly disagree with your interpretation, I think it is clear that the argument for deletion is nowhere near as clear cut as you had made it appear in the nomination for this article. As the Categories, lists, and series boxes guideline provides clearcut support for retention, I hope you will recognize that the deletion of this and other lists boils down to personal aesthetic preferences, not policy violations. As this article has an eminently supported justification for retention, I sincerely hope that you can see that there are many users who would prefer to see this (and other similar articles) retained for their benefit. You can feel free to refrain from using this and other lists, while allowing others to enjoy the policy. Alansohn 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Sufficiently notable and contains information that is not readily included in a category (such as schools without an article). &mdash; RJH (talk) 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. As I already said in my comment above, it is absurd that this particular article is nominated for deletion while other similar lists are not. In the end this one is compact, well structured and not a "red link farm" (although, as already mentioned by someone, red links in lists are not that bad). Yet, I believe these lists are somewhat problematic, since they are just list of random schools. It would be easier, if this list contained only most notable schools, but defining notability in this case may be difficult. Julius Sahara 20:54, 26 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.