Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of virtual schools


 * 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) czar ♔   07:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

List of virtual schools

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This list doesn't serve any of the purposes of lists given at WP:LISTPURP. It's definitely not a useful source of information. Since the vast majority of entries don't have articles it doesn't serve a navigational purpose. And since the vast majority of entries shouldn't have articles, it doesn't serve an expansion purpose either. The "sources" are practically all primary sources, ie the schools' websites, and many of them are broken, too. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * EDIT - I should mention that this rationale (which I completely agree with) was taken from the original PROD of the article by Huon, and I didn't feel like re-typing it all. Yes, I am lazy. No, this should not invalidate the AfD. Primefac (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep There will be a large number of virtual schools and colleges that would be clearly notable if they were conventional educational institutions, but where there is difficulty in obtaining sufficient information and sourcing to justify a stand--alone article. A list like this can have the purpose of providing a place for this material: the world is not divided neatly into notable | non-notable, and there can be things worth including in an encyclopedia, but not at article length. Eventually, many of these will be expandable. alternatively, if there are any notable schools of this type the list will serrve a navigational purpose, evben if limited to them.  DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I can't word it much better than DGG. Agree entirely with that argument. JTdale   Talk 20:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - I disagree that it does not serve a useful purpose for expansion or navigation. I just added a fairly major Canadian University with an article to this list. Problems with broken links and lack of secondary sources can be solved and should not be a reason to delete an article. Meters (talk) 00:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - but only now that it has been fixed. I can absolutely understand why would nominate this for deletion based on the state it was in. What a mess! It was primarily a promotional list of non-notable orgs of little value (unless you were promoting your org). I've gone through and fixed the list by removing 200+ non-notable and duplicate entries.  Stesmo (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2014 (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.