Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of junior colleges in Japan

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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of junior colleges in Japan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The rather WP:INDISCRIMINATE inclusion category for this list is "comprehensive list of junior colleges in Japan that exist today or existed in the past." It provides little additional information, only links to the colleges' articles and their home cities or wards. As of 15 November 2013, all of the articles on the list were included in Category:Japanese junior colleges. Cnilep (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN. Lists can carry information that can't be included in category pages. It already has more useful information than Category:Japanese junior colleges because it lists the location and whether they're women's colleges, though reordering would be good. WP:INDISCRIMINATE is irrelevant because it prohibits 4 categories of article, none of which are remotely similar to this. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that those four specific categories are the entirety of indiscriminate information. As the page states, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." My thought was that this list is essentially an extensive list; election statistics are, I think, an example rather than a definition of a "long and sprawling list". On the other hand, I am somewhat more persuaded by your argument that the marking of women's colleges may be considered "context and explanation". Cnilep (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP and WP:LISTPURP. Lists and cats are complementary, the article's content are all blue-links to Wikipedia articles. The list has potential for expansion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CLN is the guideline. Not indiscriminate, it has clear inclusion criteria and adds information to that provided by a category. Entirely proper use for a list. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No policy-based reason for deletion articulated, per the above. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 27 November 2013 (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.