Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of standardized tests for grade schools in the United States


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 04:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

List of standardized tests for grade schools in the United States

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is a fork of List of standardized tests in the United States and is therefore redundant. It adds nothing new to Wikipedia, it is very limited in scope, and it was created after the other list mentioned above. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * An AfD really isn't necessary here, as the articles could just be merged back together - but since this is a fork and it's here, I'll agree with the nominator and say this should be deleted as redundant.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 00:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep temporarily.  I left a note at Talk:List of standardized tests in the United States. My suggestion is to use categories and subcategories. In the meantime they will need the list page to know quickly what to add to that grade-school test subcategory. See: Categories, lists, and series boxes. The same introduction can be used on the category page. --Timeshifter 12:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As noted on the talk page, categories cannot be created with pages that do not yet exist. The list provides existing and unavailable pages. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 14:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I agree. I struck out "temporarily" from my first comment. I think more subcategories of Category:Standardized tests need to be started though. Then they can be filled in more as the wikipedia pages are created.--Timeshifter 15:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You misunderstood me. I still think this list is redundant with List of standardized tests in the United States. There is absolutely no need for this list since it is simply a copy of the other. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 15:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I see a conflict between you and another editor. I am not taking sides in that. My point is that more breakdown by type of test is needed. Both on the list pages and the category pages. I don't see how this list is redundant. I don't see an equivalent subsection at List of standardized tests in the United States. --Timeshifter 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's here. It's the exact same list, and the other editor copied it because he wants a list of only state standardized tests, and that's silly because there are other standardized tests. Why are you giving an opinion on this subject if you haven't read both articles? The redundancy is very obvious. Furthermore, this list is not very long, and the other one is not long enough to be split into multiple articles, so why do you advocate more lists when there isn't enough content? &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This list provides information vital to understanding No Child Left Behind, and its contents are under continued scrutiny by media, politicians, parents and students across the US. Lumping it together with other, less valuable conglomeration lists would unnecessarily complicate WP. – Freechild (BoomCha) 17:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Maintaining a list of fewer than 50 items is useless, and this list would never contain more than 50. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 17:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There are thousands of lists and charts on wikipedia. Many of them have fewer than 50 items. This site search, and this one, pull up thousands of examples of lists and comparison tables on wikipedia. --Timeshifter 17:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you explain to me why you would want a more specific list when the more general list isn't that long? Why should there be two lists? I can find no good reason for having both of these. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

We need more third-party opinions here. So far, only Timeshifter provides a third-party opinion. &mdash; Chris53516 (Talk) 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Outside view Delete unless intended for expansion or if the plan is to divide the main article. The material is all readily found on the main list in the same sequence. The only thing added is the alphabetical table of contents, but most people can navigate an alphabetic list of states without one. This would make sense, however, if it is intended to have separate articles for the various major groups, this being only the first step, or if it is intended to provide considerably more detail or a different arrangement in the smaller list. But otherwise, its a clearly un-neded partial copy.DGG 00:30, 16 June 2007 (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.