Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of high schools in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 14:12, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
Lists of high schools in the United States[edit]
- For the prior VFD discussion of High schools in the United States see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools in the United States.
This has been here since February, once went through VfD, survived the VfD, and still consists of almost nothing but red links. RickK 06:02, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. As Rick said it already survived VfD once... the same arguments still apply. In addition to that, many links wouldn't be red if there wouldn't be fear of being deleted in 20 seconds of being created, articles have the instinct of self preservation also, you know? Beta m (talk)
- Keep. I just expanded it to include all 50 states and DC. One problem with the original page was that the few articles there were were called "High schools in XXX", instead of "List of high schools in XXX". A quick count tells me that the ratio of live links to red links is about 50:50. Dale Arnett 06:46, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Lets abide by the decision to keep with my suggestion that it would seem a better use of time to instead concentrate on other articles that may, or may not, be in need of deletion. --ShaunMacPherson 07:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Sometimes things are kept with the assumption that they will improve "organically", if that doesn't happen it can be reasonable to re-nominate. Kappa 08:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If none of the people who voted keep the last time around did anything to make this page an encyclopedic page, and it just sits there with nothing in it but red links for four months, then it deserves to be re-VfD'd. RickK 08:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. I have promissed myself to keep away from high school articles but, really, do we need lists of lists of lists of lists? IMHO, it is kinda ridiculous... Sarg 09:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- replace with categorisation. Dunc|☺ 11:21, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. A list can show redlinks, a category can't. There may be an argument for deletion when there are no more redlinks (as one would remove the framework upon which an arch is built when the keystone is in place). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:51, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- A category can include to-do lists of redlinks on its category page or on its talk page. This is not exactly an unknown practice. My comments from the previous VFD stand. Delete in favour of categorizing the individual lists into Category:Lists of schools, and make use of the (currently blank) category page and its (currently non-existent) talk page for recording work yet to be done. Uncle G 16:08, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
- Comment What's the big deal with having a list of lists? Is the presence of this perfectly good article actually doing any harm to Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you think that lists of lists containing redlinks are "good articles", which they are not (You yourself described this as a "framework", effectively no more than a to-do list sub-page of a Wikiproject that has been put into the wrong namespace.), then I suggest that you argue with the authors of Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_lists, who write "On lists of lists, nonexistant lists should not be included. That is, all the links in a "lists of lists" should be active (blue, not red).". Uncle G 20:50, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
- I have no argument with the authors of any Wikipedia document, but observe that the document that you cite also incorrectly states that lists of lists are obsolete. If something is wrong it's wrong. I don't need to argue with it, just go on ignoring it like everybody else does. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The first half of your sentence is belied by its own second half. You patently do have an argument. You are claiming that what they wrote is incorrect. Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
- No, I'm happy to live and let live. The document can continue to exist and I will continue to ignore it where my commonsense says there's a better way. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I have no argument with the authors of any Wikipedia document, but observe that the document that you cite also incorrectly states that lists of lists are obsolete. If something is wrong it's wrong. I don't need to argue with it, just go on ignoring it like everybody else does. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If you think that lists of lists containing redlinks are "good articles", which they are not (You yourself described this as a "framework", effectively no more than a to-do list sub-page of a Wikiproject that has been put into the wrong namespace.), then I suggest that you argue with the authors of Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_lists, who write "On lists of lists, nonexistant lists should not be included. That is, all the links in a "lists of lists" should be active (blue, not red).". Uncle G 20:50, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
- Comment What's the big deal with having a list of lists? Is the presence of this perfectly good article actually doing any harm to Wikipedia? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:23, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, categories full of lists are incredibly ugly (like Category:Lists of schools, and this list can be edited without using a bot. Also someone may wish to annotate it, for instance to include the number of schools in each state. Kappa 16:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I find the assertion that the category is "incredibly ugly", whereas the list is (by implication) not, to be rather bizarre, given that the only significant differences between the two right now are the number of columns and the greater breadth of the category. (It's indicative of the way in which the category is better that for months, up until this article was nominated for deletion, it had only 10 states listed, whereas Category:Lists of schools had grown as new articles were added and had 27 states listed.) Moreover, if people wished to annotate this list of lists, they would have, in the months that this list of lists has lain fallow. They haven't. Instead, they've have in fact added such data to the individual list pages, as you yourself did to List of high schools in Alabama. I strongly suspect that readers are more likely to expect a table of the total number of schools in each state somewhere such as Education in the United States, or somewhere referenced from there. I think it unlikely that they will think that this list of lists will be the place to look for such a hypothetical table, or even that this list of lists even exists. Uncle G 20:50, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
- Convert into a category, with subcategories (e.g. schools in particular geographic areas) for simplicity. ~~~~ 17:32, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Neutralitytalk 20:07, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, and live and let live while we're at it. sjorford →•← 21:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This has the combined notablitly of each of the listed school. Klonimus 21:18, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That would be zero, then, given that there are no schools listed in the article. It's not a list of schools. It's a list of lists. Please actually read the article. Uncle G 05:04, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
- Delete. In my opinion, nearly all high schools in the United States fail to qualify for mention on WP for lack of notability. There was a similar debate when List of shopping malls came up on VfD a while back and the consensus was to limit to notable malls. But then we have had a big fight over what is a notable mall. Deciding what is a notable high school would be even harder. --Coolcaesar 01:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Inclusion criteria for schools don't apply directly to this article. It's not a list of schools. It's a list of lists. Please actually read the article. Uncle G 05:04, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
- Keep, I see nothing wrong with the list, one advantage of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia/almanac is that we don't have space contraints. Surely with effort being used in even less appropriate places, we can stand to keep this article. Where is the harm in it?--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:00, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Interestingly, that's the same question sometimes asked by the writers of vanity or neologism pages. Now ask: Where's the benefit in it? What purpose of lists does this list of lists (in the main article namespace) fulfil? It's obviously not development, for starters, given that 25 of the 27 per-state list articles weren't even listed here until this article was nominated for deletion. Development appears to have progressed just fine without reference to this article. Uncle G 05:04, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight: your point is that if we follow the rules concerning vanity articles then my comments are irrelevant? I suppose if it actually were a vanity article...the fact is that many school district articles are beginning to appear in Wikipedia. This is a great crossreference list. It actually is serving a niche purpose. Let's not be in a hurry to tear it down just yet.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- No. The first point is that "Where is the harm in it?" is the question often asked by those who don't understand that what we are writing here is an encyclopaedia. And the second point, a question that you have not answered, was to ask what purpose of lists this list of lists fulfils. Furthermore: False. This is not a "great cross-reference" list. The "cross-reference list" was, and is, Category:Lists of schools, which is being actively maintained whilst this article is not. The fact that Category:Lists of schools listed all of the school list articles whilst this article did not speaks for itself. If you are going to assert that this list "serves a niche purpose", please answer the question. What purpose of lists does this list of lists (in the main article namespace) fulfil? Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
- It's not actively being maintained? I think we need to delete half of the articles on Wikipedia then. That is not a criteria for deletion. The purpose is a place for the lists to be linked to (for instance, Education in the United States can't link to each list, but this list of lists is relevant to the article; a category is unlikely to be found by someone not familiar with Wikipedia, making it a less than ideal choice.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- It's not actively being maintained, whilst the pre-existing category of lists, being a category, is being automatically maintained by the software. And again you state a purpose for this list that the pre-existing category can, and does, accomplish. Are you under some confused misapprehension that Education in the United States cannot link to a category page? It most certainly can, and does. Furthermore categories can be easily found if editors don't use your brand of circular logic: "We don't link to categories, therefore categories cannot be easily found, therefore we don't link to categories.". Uncle G 08:44, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
- Oh yes, and its maintained so well. I wonder why so many of the lists fall under "U"? Maybe I'm just seeing things then. Automation is not the key. Then there's List of schools in Australia, which is under "*". Very effective.--naryathegreat | (talk) 20:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- Very effective and organized with the knowledge that there are many countries in the world, even. The United States lists of schools fall under "U" because "United States" (and hence "United States, Arkansas", for example) begins with "U". Did you think that the United States was the only country that had schools? You make my point for me. Uncle G 03:59, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
- Unfortunately nobody's first instinct is to look for Texas under "U". It isn't a list by country and then states, it is Category:Lists of schools. Nothing in the title says by country. And you still can't explain why Australia is under "*" (edit: Oh, and Hong Kong is under "H", and Hong Kong is a city). It's okay, but it leaves the impression of disorganization. And yes I understand the different country lists. Also, on a side note, what is the automative feature called that does this automatically?--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:15, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- Very effective and organized with the knowledge that there are many countries in the world, even. The United States lists of schools fall under "U" because "United States" (and hence "United States, Arkansas", for example) begins with "U". Did you think that the United States was the only country that had schools? You make my point for me. Uncle G 03:59, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)
- Oh yes, and its maintained so well. I wonder why so many of the lists fall under "U"? Maybe I'm just seeing things then. Automation is not the key. Then there's List of schools in Australia, which is under "*". Very effective.--naryathegreat | (talk) 20:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
- It's not actively being maintained, whilst the pre-existing category of lists, being a category, is being automatically maintained by the software. And again you state a purpose for this list that the pre-existing category can, and does, accomplish. Are you under some confused misapprehension that Education in the United States cannot link to a category page? It most certainly can, and does. Furthermore categories can be easily found if editors don't use your brand of circular logic: "We don't link to categories, therefore categories cannot be easily found, therefore we don't link to categories.". Uncle G 08:44, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
- It's not actively being maintained? I think we need to delete half of the articles on Wikipedia then. That is not a criteria for deletion. The purpose is a place for the lists to be linked to (for instance, Education in the United States can't link to each list, but this list of lists is relevant to the article; a category is unlikely to be found by someone not familiar with Wikipedia, making it a less than ideal choice.--naryathegreat | (talk) 21:44, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- No. The first point is that "Where is the harm in it?" is the question often asked by those who don't understand that what we are writing here is an encyclopaedia. And the second point, a question that you have not answered, was to ask what purpose of lists this list of lists fulfils. Furthermore: False. This is not a "great cross-reference" list. The "cross-reference list" was, and is, Category:Lists of schools, which is being actively maintained whilst this article is not. The fact that Category:Lists of schools listed all of the school list articles whilst this article did not speaks for itself. If you are going to assert that this list "serves a niche purpose", please answer the question. What purpose of lists does this list of lists (in the main article namespace) fulfil? Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
- So let me get this straight: your point is that if we follow the rules concerning vanity articles then my comments are irrelevant? I suppose if it actually were a vanity article...the fact is that many school district articles are beginning to appear in Wikipedia. This is a great crossreference list. It actually is serving a niche purpose. Let's not be in a hurry to tear it down just yet.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- Interestingly, that's the same question sometimes asked by the writers of vanity or neologism pages. Now ask: Where's the benefit in it? What purpose of lists does this list of lists (in the main article namespace) fulfil? It's obviously not development, for starters, given that 25 of the 27 per-state list articles weren't even listed here until this article was nominated for deletion. Development appears to have progressed just fine without reference to this article. Uncle G 05:04, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
- Keep This is a perfect example of a subject area where list and categories complement each other usefully. And as for four months! Please be patient. Wikipedia isn't working to a deadline. Oliver Chettle 18:38, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I honestly don't know how to respond to this comment. I am flabbergasted. We're supposed to leave absolutely ridiculous articles lying around forever on the off chance that somebody some day may do something with it? RickK 21:07, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- It's not an example of that at all. This list of lists provides nothing that the category of lists, which existed for months before the list of lists was even created, does not. There is demonstrably nothing useful in this list of lists. The fact that the only expansion to it when this nomination was made was to populate it so that it listed everything already listed in the category, speaks volumes. Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
- Keep As has been said before, what harm does it do? This is obviously not a spam article or a vanity article of any kind. You 21:10, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Neither was 11111 (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/11111). "What harm does it do?" is the wrong question. We're not writing The Big Book of Harmless Link Farms. We're writing an encyclopaedia. Our list articles have to serve a purpose. We have a defined set of such purposes of lists. So far, no-one has put forward any purpose whatever for this list of lists. And I suspect that no-one can given that we already had a category of lists that was better than this list of lists, and can do everything that this article does and everything that it is claimed this article can do. Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons stated both by Beta M and Rick K. --Bahn Mi 22:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- See WP:AN/I. This is a suspected sock of User:GRider, who is banned from VfD. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:56, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, for reasons stated by Rick.--Centauri 04:21, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, far too broad. We already have lists for individual states and such. Radiant_* 10:43, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- How would I find a list for an individual state? 10:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talk • contribs)
- By looking at Category:Lists of schools, the list of articles that the MediaWiki software automatically generates (without the need to manually create and edit a list article), and that already existed at the time that this manual list of articles was first created. Uncle G 17:22, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)
- How would I find a list for an individual state? 10:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kappa (talk • contribs)
- Delete. List of lists of redlinks. Let it burn. --Scimitar 14:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. RickK, Uncle G and others are correct. Categories serve this purpose better. Quale 15:52, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a useful research tool, and there are plenty of other similar lists on Wikipedia. --newsjunkie 15:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Or, create an article on school directories and sources of school information like www.greatschools.net make this redirect to it. This is not a useful research tool, because the lists are maintained by hand and are grossly incomplete. Incomplete lists are worse than useless when very accurate, up-to-date lists of this kind can be obtained online at no cost at sites like http://www.greatschools.net. Finally, although there is no consensus regarding what should be done with articles about non-notable high schools once they have been created, there is a rough consensus that the creation of such articles should not be encouraged, so redlinks to schools that serve no other purpose should be avoided. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- 'keep this again please it is helpful Yuckfoo 16:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.