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 of the debate was no consensus to delete. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in the United Kingdom[edit]

Would editors please note that there is another discussion for a related article at the bottom of the page! Somebody requested the debate be split and I have agreed. So, please contribute to that debate too as that one is being passed by at the moment. --kingboyk 20:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the talk page (where there are several comments about the pointlessness of this list), there is in the order of 25,000 schools in the UK. The list is already 177k, which way over the recommended article size. I believe WP:NOT (indiscriminate info) applies. Really a list like this is lacking on context, and it does nothing for the reader that the already quite intricately structured schools categories can't do a lot better.

Please note, this is not an anti-schools nomination (I'm in the "schools are notable" camp), it's anti-listcruft. Second note (very important one) - I anticipate that some editors will say "this list shows red links but categories don't" (and that, frankly my friends, is the only virtue of this list). Wikipedia is optimised for readers not editors, and categories are optimal for readers. If a redlink list is needed, it belongs in the schools WikiProject (see WP:Beatles for how we've been approaching this issue). Delete or move to the schools WikiProject. kingboyk 12:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. This was previously nominated just over a year ago and the result was Keep. --kingboyk 12:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added List of UK Independent Schools. This is a much smaller and more specialisted list so it is unreasonable to lump it in with this one, which has been nominated partly for its size, especially after some delete votes have been recorded. I will list it separately. CalJW 17:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC) One delete vote. --kingboyk 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the above. Would support a copy of this list being created at the Schools project, where they can use it as a tool to assist in their expansion. -- Saberwyn 12:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, dump a copy in the schools project as required. Good call. I like the point that Wikipedia is optimised for readers, not editors, and will be regurgitating it from now on. Listcruft fans (cruftos?) would do well to remember it. Proto||type 14:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pn. A clearly put and well argued nomination Kcordina ^Talk 14:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Send it over to the school project. youngamerican (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, listcruft, bring this to the WikiProject. --Terence Ong 17:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep It needs splitting up, that's all. Scranchuse 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Essential lists. America has similar lists. The point about readers versus editors makes no sense at all: the red links tell readers the names of schools which don't have articles. Lumping a list of a couple of hundred items in with one far larger which has been nominated largely on account of size is unreasonable so I will separate it. CalJW 17:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The old "someone else has it so we must" excuse? (Last seen in a forumcruft debate near you). It's a list of potentially 25,000 articles which makes it indiscriminate information. Why don't we have List of schools in Europe? Because it makes no sense, and nor does this. --kingboyk 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is mean is America has lists of schools and they are useful. A list of schools is not indiscrimate information - look up the meaning of the word in a dictionary. CalJW 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • wiktionary:indiscriminate: "without care or making distinctions, thoughtless". --kingboyk 19:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • There you are then, it is irrelevant. CalJW 05:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per kingboyk. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 18:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete listcruft. Henning Makholm 20:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and convert into a list of lists. Piccadilly 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and complete. Obviously, we want this. It's a list of schools and we do articles on schools. If size is a problem it should be divided into a series of lists. -- JJay 02:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:Schools in the United Kingdom does this far better. Can a page redirect to a category?, if so, redirect it as well. --Midnighttonight 08:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and subdivide list if necessary, but absolutely do not delete this content from Wikipedia. Silensor 03:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and subdivide by county. Honbicot 04:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep and divide as necessary, perhaps convert into a list of lists by country and if necessary, by county. Samantha of Cardyke 11:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep At least until most of the red links are gone and even then it is a useful list if divided by country/county--Rjstott 06:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please erasing this makes no sense at all Yuckfoo 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 of the debate was Keep  (aeropagitica)  16:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of UK Independent Schools[edit]

Same principle. More-than-adequately served by categories, redlinks can be tracked in the WikiProject. --kingboyk 13:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was lumped together with a much smaller and more specialist list, which was unreasonable.

• Very strong keep. There are only a few hundred independent schools in the UK, and the sector is important in its own right. The categories have been divided by county, which means that they don't offer the alphabetical list that this does. Also there are red links, which encourage the creation of articles and inform readers of the existence of schools without articles. CalJW 17:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Refactored, as he'd actually struck out my nomination and put his comment where the nomination should go! --kingboyk 18:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I'm starting to agree with you about bundled nominations, so I support splitting. (but not striking out my nomination and heading the debate with your defence!) --kingboyk 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to do what I could to counter your manipulative behaviour within the limitations of the software. I am pleased to see that you don't intend to do the same sort of thing again. CalJW 19:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL please. Adding a late find onto an existing AFD when there's only been one contributor is par for the course. I personally will try to refrain from doing it in the future because it doesn't help the closing admin, and then of course there's people who will moan about process rather than the matter at hand. --kingboyk 19:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provides access to information on a very important aspect of British society. Piccadilly 20:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No problem at all here since we have articles on most of these schools. -- JJay 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Use a category instead. --Midnighttonight 08:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the list above. Silensor 03:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and complete. There are few enough of these that they can all fit on one page. Honbicot 04:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The task of gathering things is handled by categories. Grouping things like this is messy and not a particularly useful way of allowing readers to find things. Page seems to fall neatly into WP:NOT. The tracking of redlinks should be handled by wikiproject schools, not in an article. Kcordina ^Talk 12:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has thousands of lists so it is nonsense to say in some off hand way that they are not a proper part of it. CalJW 05:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this list is important too Yuckfoo 06:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.