Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India Today's top 10 colleges of India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

India Today's top 10 colleges of India[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. Delete. This article was originally created as "Top 10 colleges of India". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 colleges of India. Why does an encyclopedia need a list of "top ten" prepared by a magazine? Such lists are highly POV and subjective. In fact, IIMs had opted out of such Top Ten lists some time ago. There are innumerable magazines and newspapers bringing out list of top ten colleges each year - we don't need an article for each of them. utcursch | talk 04:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To all people who have complained of systematic bias: I am an Indian and this is certainly not bias. By the way, I find Newsweeks’s List of Top High Schools (2003), Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005) also equally non-encylopedic and delete-worthy. utcursch | talk 05:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here are they: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003). utcursch | talk 05:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing: These lists are copyvio: See [1]] and [2]. The author doesn't discuss the list - the criteria, the methodology. The author has not taken any pains to even wikify the list. utcursch | talk 06:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I personally wasn't saying this nomination was systemic bias. To clarify my position, I will reprint here what I put on my talk page:
I wasn't saying the nomination was an example of systemic bias. Of course not! What I was saying was that, since we have articles on such US lists, it's only fair that we have Indian ones too. And I think we should have such lists, in general. Jacqui ★ 16:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newsweeks’s List of Top High Schools (2003), Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005), Newsweek, India Today. Uncle G 04:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have American lists that are similar. This helps WP:CSB. Jacqui ★ 05:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the colleges' articles, if any of them exist. ("This school ranked #8 on India Today's top 10 colleges of India list.") —Cleared as filed. 05:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lists of this nature exist on WP for the USA. Help stop systemic bias by keeping this article.--Nicodemus75 07:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wouldn't be deleted if it was an American list. CalJW 08:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although I think the nominator could legitimately take umbrage at the above implications that s/he is somehow culturally biased and put this on Afd b/c it is from India. Assume good faith and recall that many find such lists cumbersome, unwieldy, and problematic, regardless of cultural or national origin. Dottore So 10:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What nonsense. Suggesting that there might be systemic bias against articles about non-primary English speaking countries is not the same as implying that an editor is personally culturally biased. Quit waving around WP:AGF trying to make points.--Nicodemus75 12:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above. The previous AfD only ended yesterday, so why is this being listed again? - ulayiti (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and the American ones too. Every single publication in every single country in the world seems to run at least one "top ten" or "top 100" article every year, it's a space-filler for the silly season or the slow period round Jan 1. Where do we set the cutoff for these arbitrary lists? - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 14:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Counter systemic bias by deleting the American version as well. flowersofnight (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Cleared As Filed. --Martin Osterman 16:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Cleard As Filed or Delete as per Just zis Guy. --William Pietri 18:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Inherently POV, even if reporting on a specific newspaper's top 10, inherently unstable as it will change every year, and unnecessary. Yes, delete Time Magazine's top 10 colleges of America and Newsweek Magazine's top 10 colleges of America if they exist. (Hint: they don't, so the "systemic bias" is a red herring in this case.) Geogre 18:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep if it can be shown that this list is well-known and influential. Also include note that IIMS have opted out Bwithh 22:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NPOV. Obviously there must be some kind of systemic bias against colleges, since we have Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003) etc. Kappa 01:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since apparently we have similar articles for schools within the United States. Yamaguchi先生 08:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep fights systemic bias. Youngamerican 04:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How big or small does a publication have to be before its subjective annual top ten lists get Wikipedia articles, and who is responsible for updating them every year when a different set of arbitrary choices replaces them? All these articles are unencyclopaedic. Their legitimacy depends entirely on a fallacious appeal to the authority of the journal which published them. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to be truely NPOV we must keep this since we allow lists like Rolling Stones top 100 guitarists of all time and other lists of that nature.  ALKIVAR™ 06:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see it in the AfDs over and over, but I'm still unmoved by the argument that possible cruft justifies more possible cruft. Do you have another argument for the merits of this article? Thanks, --William Pietri 06:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And for the record I would also delete Rolling Stone's top 100 guitarists and all the other subjective lists by random publications, with the possible exception of The 100 if it can be proven beyond doubt that this genuinely started the whole stupidity, and even then It could go either way on the grounds of being a blindingly obvious concept. A list of this nature without the spurious authority of a publication would instantly be deleted as inherently subjective. Having someone else without a NPOV rule publish it just allows it to be slipstreamed into Wikipedia without the benefit of a provable basis for inclusion or ranking. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 13:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amen to that. I think Rolling Stone can host their own list. The material seems fine on individual school pages, and I'm happy with a page that describes in an NPOV way the topic of ranking schools in country X that has links to these lists. But including the lists themselves seems to be dancing on the border of both POV and copyvio. --William Pietri 15:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As above and stop afd spam. Trollderella 17:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you don't agree with the nominator does not mean it is afd spam. Assume good faith. --Idont Havaname 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a summary of it into College and university rankings, and have the list as an ext link on that article. The current version looks like it was stolen from another website. (In addition, College and university rankings seems like it has a lot of coverage of US News rankings right now, and needs more about non-US colleges to counter systemic bias.) --Idont Havaname 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Listcruft. Article should explain the fact that India Today prints this list periodically and externally link to the source material of the lists. No reason to recreate lists on wikipedia.my comment...unsigned [User:Isotope23]
  • Comment. Hi there. This is your friendly neighborhood IP lawyer. Listing the names of the schools can not be a copyvio, because Newsweek is simply taking a set formula and applying it to publicly available facts about the schools in question. See Feist v. Rural. The formula itself is merely an idea, and is not subject to copyright; only the expression of the idea can be protected, and the listing here does not duplicate the expression because it differs significantly from the layout of the Newsweek list. See Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1991). I've maintained such a list - indeed one more similar to Newsweek's own - in my user space for quite some time without fear of legal action, because I'm quite confident that this is no copyvio (and even if it was, it would easily qualify as fair use). No vote on the article itself. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 November 2005
  • Delete. Even if this isn't a copyright violation, it's pointless to rehash this Newsweek article. Claims of bias are a bit silly. Foofy 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, as per nom. *drew 03:05, 16 November 2005 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/India_Today%27s_top_10_colleges_of_India&oldid=1137928691"