Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in Pakistan (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  C T J F 8 3 chat 03:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

List of schools in Pakistan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

A country with  the population  of Pakistan will  have a round 150,000 - 200,000 schools. Delete as untenable list. Kudpung (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a list of lists of schools in Pakistan by administrative unit:
 * Strong Keep The issue of lists of schools has been discussed before. When such lists have become too long before, they've been reorganized into different categories.  Wikipedia maintains lists of schools in many countries with higher populations than Pakistan (see List of schools by country) .  The Wikipedia community has shown a high tolerance for such lists as long as they abide by Lists. Wickedjacob (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep for similar reasons. No reason to single out Pakistan's list of schools for deletion. AtticusX (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but if and only if it is a frontpage to a "list of lists", like Lists of schools in Australia or similar articles. Article must read:
 * List of schools in Balochistan
 * List of schools in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa
 * List of schools in Punjab (Pakistan)
 * List of schools in Sindh
 * List of schools in Islamabad Capital Territory
 * List of schools in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Pakistan)
 * List of schools in Azad Kashmir
 * List of schools in Gilgit-Baltistan
 * As Kudpung rightly points out the article as it currently stands is an untenable list. As Wickedjacob rightly points out - need link, Wickedjacob - the issue of lists of schools has been discussed before. On a purely practical note: would this "list of lists" be maintainable? --Shirt58 (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it would be. Pakistan doesn't rapidly add and remove administrative units.  One wouldn't have to go around constantly adding and removing sub-lists.  Note, also, that this article is already broken out into sub-lists in some sections.  Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * On the subject of systemic bias against things which are not Europe nor North America, notice the parallel deletion nomination of, a list of (a particular type of) schools in India. Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Size does not make lists "untenable" when they can easily be broken into sublists.  If there are no other deletion rationales forthcoming (I can't imagine any), I recommend this be closed as a snow keep.  postdlf (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. We can make a rationale for keeping only notable schools, that are either cited by primary or secondary sources, and add a 'refimprove' template above. But deleting a list, in my opinion, is a cowardly act. Farjad 0322 (talk&#124;sign&#124;contribs) 17:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes, it needs clean up and probably further splitting into sub-lists, but as an index to those lists it's perfectly at home among other such lists. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article is part of a set of "list of schools in" which was kept at AfD/MfD about three years ago. Indeed it was started after the decision to have such articles had been made. It should be decided as part of that set and not in isolation. --BozMo talk 08:02, 4 January 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.