Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World University Rankings 2015

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World University Rankings 2015

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

We usually don't copy rankings from sites and mirror them per WP:NOTMIRROR. This is very selective with undefined criteria, better do what we do for 'Forbes rankings'. This comes under WP:LISTCRUFT. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian medical college rankings, 2015. Störm (talk) 12:34, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- First of all, WP:NOTMIRROR is completely, astoundingly, irrelevant to this article. This list has exactly none of the qualities discussed there. Secondly, WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not policy, and it also does not apply here. That essay is about indiscriminate lists, that is lists without a well-defined inclusion criterion. This list has a perfectly well-defined objective binary inclusion criterion, stated right at the top of the list: Universities "which are ranked in the top 50 by at least one of the following..." Thus there's no valid reason given for deletion. Finally, the actually applicable notability guideline, WP:LISTN, tells us that a list subject is notable when the entries have been discussed as a group by RS. That's clearly the case with World University Rankings. See e.g. The Guardian, Times Higher Ed Supplement, and so on. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – And again Well said 192.160.216.52. I know AFD is not a Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion where we count up the Keep and Delete comments and that the one that is represented more is the final outcome, but rather a censuses on which side presents the better argument. 192.160.216.52 presented such a very compelling and valid argument that I cannot add anything other than to say Keep. I may just follow you around all day! ShoesssS ^Talk 14:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On the undefined criteria issue, I think that is a fair point, but there is an article on these criteria (including criticism), and a link to that would remove the problem. They are certainly not arbitrary lists, all three ranking organisations being respectable and with their own articles. Having a single place giving the results for one year is a useful resource - rather than delete, encouraging similar reports for other years would be a good way forward. The listing itself is noteworthy, giving Anglo-American universities all the top places - depending on your view notably encouraging or something that reflects the criticism of the approaches discussed in the other articles; but this article is not attempting to interpret it, just giving the data for readers to consider and other editors to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.70.166 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe WP:CIL applies. The selection of rankings also seems rather arbitrary (unless it would be explained). --Muhandes (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Muhandes; pages that are simply replications of lists published elsewhere should generally be deleted. Also, having this type of list for every individual year is excessive. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.First, about the criteria etc This is a comparison of the three standard international lists--it is easy to show they are currently the principal lists (Inside Higher Ed . )--it will also be possible to discuss adding others. An introductory paragraph is necessary to explain this, and to very briefly summarize how the criteria for the 3 lists are different, so people reading it will not be confused. Second, about repeating material from elsewhere: this is a compilation of data, and, within limits, that has always been part of the function of encyclopedias and almanacs; and , according to WP:NOT, WP is both. Nor is this very simplified comparison available elsewhere as conveniently findable lists; other available comparisons are much more complicated. WP has an important role as a summary of more complicated material for the general user.

In fact, most of our comparison lists is of this nature: we always have similar problems as here--we have to select which daa to compare, and the data is invariably available elsewhere. But we can present it more usably. Usefulness is a valid criterion for a list. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to understand the argument. Are you saying that since this is the purpose of Wikipedia, we are allowed to violate copyright? Because this list either violates it or it doesn't, and I don't see anyone here saying it doesn't, and if so, why. --Muhandes (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CIL. And considering the fact there are no articles for every other year, Wikipedia isn't an archive of popularity contests. Ajf773 (talk) 07:33, 20 March 2018 (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.