Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuition in Canada

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. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tuition in Canada

Tuition in Canada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I really don't think that tuition in Canada is real deserving of a topic. It's just a list of facts and statistics, and WP:NOT an almanac. Any relevant information can be merged into other articles (specific universities, provinces, or Education in Canada). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as some of the data could be used at Education in Canada but there's really no need for this page as such. Definitely fails WP:NOT as is. JJL (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Merge relevant information to Education in Canada#Post-secondary education and redirect to Education in Canada. Appears to have been an attempt to clean up the Tuition article by moving these "facts and figures" to its own article [1] but I agree that it doesn't belong there. Some of the info could be of interest if made into prose rather than bullets. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GJ (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Wikipedia may include almanac information per Pillar One. Merger of this information into other articles does not require deletion. See Help:Merging and moving pages. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree that if nom felt merging was deserving, then nom should have done so or tagged it. I believe nom was incorrect in referring to an almanac. An almanac is organised information. This is, at best, an indiscriminate collection of statistics and, at worst, a soapbox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Almanac information includes everything. This is someone's synthesis, their choice of the "facts and figures" (from four years ago!) that they thought were interesting. This synthesis was either done by the author of this article, or the author of the 2003 article in The Daily. What's to merge? Mandsford (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable topic affecting millions. Sarsaparilla (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I like it isn't a valid keep reason. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 22:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• ...if not the fate of the free world. Mandsford (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:Sarcasm is really helpful. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
    • LOL! Sarsaparilla (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Thanks, Sasparilla... who, I'm glad to see, took no offense and knows that none was intended. One thing is for certain, if it's a choice between sarcasm, or a humorless recitation of a wiki-principle, I prefer criticism that makes me laugh. Merry Christmas! Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

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.