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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from being redundant since categories already exist, this list will never be complete, and gives a false impression of noted Thai schools. Paul C 17:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not redundant as it contains a red link. Can be annotated. Can be organised differently from the category. Expand and make any comments you think are necessary for context. Merchbow 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Merchbow. Kusonaga 21:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above Jcuk 21:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of schools in China -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was speedy deleted for containing just one entry which has no bearing on this particular list. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep categories do NOT make lists obsolete as lists can be organized in several ways while categories are always alphabetical. Lists can be annotated, categories can't. Lists and categories serve similar, but different functions. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mgm. Kappa 22:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The China discussion (which I voted to delete) is of little relevance here. Silensor 22:40, 6 February 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.