Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Waldorf 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 delete and make a category if someone wants to. John Reaves (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Waldorf Schools[edit]

An AFD was considered in its talk page before, and the fact the school system is worldwide can be represented fine with the main article. List is full of "red" Wikipedia links which may encourage people to make non-notable school articles. Guroadrunner 14:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- Noroton 19:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator didn't bring it up, but if anyone doubts notability, the Waldorf system itself is shown to be notable in the main article Waldorf education (see the second paragraph and the quotes in Footnotes 9 and 11). Since it's notable, expanding and seems to be at least somewhat influential, it seems to me it would be good to keep a list that can help people find out more about it, especially in their own corner of the world. Knowing even the name of a particular school would help in Internet searches or off-line research. We should be helping people with a serious interest in a serious subject, which is another way of saying that if ever a list was encyclopedic, it's this one. The question over whether to delete the list is separate from whether or not the schools on it are themselves notable. If some consensus of editors thinks creating Waldorf school articles should be discouraged, they can decide to remove the redlinks. Noroton 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am not nominating it because I see the notability of Waldorf Schools to be an issue, I am nominating it because the list is unnecessary and a link to the full list can be provided within the Waldorf Schools article for others to see where all of the schools are. Guroadrunner 13:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response The Waldorf education article is 48 kilobytes long, and this list is also long and not even complete. I think you'll wind up with an article that's much too long. Or do you have some other article in mind to merge it with? Noroton 01:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the proposer of the previous AfD discussion has since been banned by ArbCom from editing Waldorf related articles. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Waldorf educations contain an encyclopaedic subset of schools, and I don't see why there shouldn't be a list of them in an encyclopaedia. The list is poorly structured and undeveloped at the moment, but if you browse through it you will see there is the basis for a valid list of articles. That red links encourage blue links is true, but it is wrong to think that the creation of articles is inherently bad - each article linked from the list should be considered on its merits. It doesn't affect the value of this list. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 21:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOT As is stated in the heading there is a list of these schools online (a more complete one at that), so if people want the information then it is there. This list would be far better changed to a category with the schools that have an article being included and the red links deleted until someone creates an article for them. Xarr 22:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- In what possible way is this list indiscriminate? Or is there something else in WP:NOT that you're referring to? Since when does the information that other Web sites present govern whether or not we should have a list of encyclopedic information? Noroton 23:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry wrong guideline, it was late... Xarr 15:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Make Category as a nonnotable list of probably nonnotable schools, and per WP:NOT. If anything, make it a category (with subcats for countries if desired). There's no reason for this to be a list. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a vote I did not expect I would make before examining the article. It's full of link-outs (WP:NOT a directory) and red-links for almost certainly non-notable schools. Take those away and it's a list with very few blue links. For this, I think a category works better. --Dhartung | Talk 03:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The primary purposes of a list are to allow organization and additional details and to allow for red links, all of which can not be done in a category. See Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for a rather clear explanation of the synergistic interaction of lists and categories; they are not mutually exclusive. As usual, WP:NOT is being used as an excuse to mean "anything I have arbitrarily decided does not belong on Wikipedia, but won't offer a valid reason". The concern that red links "may encourage people to make non-notable school articles" is just as ludicrous as the fear that they might lead to mixed dancing. Alansohn 04:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I believe the concern about the red links being changed into individual, non-notable school articles is worthwhile. Calling it ludicrous without giving arguments why you think it's ludicrous doesn't help any. Guroadrunner 13:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: Sorry for not elaborating in further detail why the existence of red links as a reason for deletion of an article is "ludicrous". Lists are a perfectly valid option to use to describe a group of items in Wikipedia. As described in detail at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes, one of the specific advantages of using lists is that "Lists can include items for which there are yet no articles (red links)." While you have a dreadful fear of non-notable articles being created, I see no valid reason to use your concern as an excuse for deletion, nor have you provided any examples of a genuine problem to demonstrate that your fears are justified. The red links might just as well be the impetus to create well-crafted articles about the many notable Waldorf Schools, to join the more than two dozen such articles already in existence. Alansohn 03:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Noroton 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least until these articles are made and this list is actually useful. MetsFan76 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was going to say Merge into Waldorf education but that article is too large for a merge. The category will serve to group the articles that currently exist. Another option would be to keep the list and not use as many heading and only have a heading where the school is listed. Vegaswikian 00:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but create category such as Category:Waldorf and Steiner Schools- Waldorf and Steiner schools do exist; I do not supprt them or the philospohy behind them, but that is irrelevant. The article on Elmfield Rudolf Steiner School states that there are 780 schools worldwide. This is much too much for a list. Anyway lists of this kind are not a useful part of WP: an external link to an organisation's own website (which will be maintained by them) is much better. However, some such schools have articles, and should be linked by means of a category. I think that creating a category is reserved to Admins. Peterkingiron 13:50, 1 April 2007 (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.