Talk:University of Calcutta/Archive 1

March 2007
Hello all, and thank you for contributing to this school site. I'm part of the WikiProject_Schools/Assessment team, and I'm reviewing this page, I'm currently giving it a grade of Stub on the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale and an importance of High on the this importance scale.

My reasoning is as follows: This article is just a laundry list for the most part with a few uncites coments about the founding of the school. This is one of the largest universities in india with 100k students, so it is is Highly important that this article be improved. Adam McCormick 00:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This article is now with WikiProject Universities, not WikiProject Schools. Camaron1 | Chris  19:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

University of Calcutta departments
I have opened   AfDs  at Articles for deletion/Department of Law, University of Calcutta and Articles for deletion/Department of Applied Physics, University of Calcutta   DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Advertising Tag
This article is clearly written in an advertising manner and is therefore contrary to various Wikipedia policies. For these reasons I have added the advertising tag to give editors a chance to bring it in line with policies. Whether the information is "factual" - as claimed by another editor - is completely irrelevant. Unless the article is substantially rewritten to conform to policies I will be formally requesting that it is deleted. Afterwriting (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the other editor - who has been removing the advertising tag and making unacceptable comments on my user page - the article is derived from the university's website. If this is so then on this basis alone it would be justifiable to delete the article for copyright violations. As it is I am giving editors the opportunity to rewrite the article to make it acceptable. I should also point out that it is not my responsiblity to rewrite the article - as the other editor mistakenly believes - just because I recognise its obvious policy problems. Afterwriting (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It does not seem like, this article is written like an advertisement, thus the ad-tag is irrelevant in this case. However it looks like a rough collection of information that will need to be rewritten to bring it to an upper Class level in the quality scale. Thanks. Ritwikbmca (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, it's more productive to avoid a "drive-by tagging" and simply tag an article without going to the talk page or editing to discuss issues. In this case, since you did make edits and included edit summaries, I think you have avoided a "drive-by tagging." But your threat to request that the article be deleted is empty and unproductive. Obviously this university is notable enough for an article, even if major edits are needed. You're welcome to submit it for deletion, of course, but you should expect that the request be rejected. WP:UNIGUIDE says that all universities are notable enough for articles.
 * Perhaps we can come up with a list of the improvements needed so we can reach a consensus on how to avoid academic boosterism in this article. Wouldn't that be a more productive path? Afterwriting, where do you see the most blatant issues of academic boosterism? If we set some priorities on changes, I think we can work together to resolve the issues. I don't see this article as blatant advertisement myself, so I agree with Ritwikbmca that the advert tag is unnecessary, but there may be some issues of boosterism that we can resolve. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I replaced the section on notable alumni & faculty, per UNIGUIDE, but I reorganized it and made some of the language more neutral. Take a look at it now and see what you think. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Alumni Section - References Required
I have removed this section as it is mostly a long list of names and Wikipedia policies require reliable and verifiable references ( not other Wikipedia articles ) in alumni sections as evidence that a person attended the school or university etc. Therefore only names of people who can be verified can be included. The recent revert of my previous deletion is based on irrelevant criteria. If you want to discuss this then please do so here and not on my talk page. Afterwriting (talk) 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have now reverted my deletion of this section on the grounds that I cannot currently locate the relevant policy - which may have changed as the page it was on no longer includes it. If I find anything I will let you know. Afterwriting (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry that you feel that the College and university article guidelines are "irrelevant criteria." Perhaps you can clarify that statement with a link to the policy that you feel is more relevant than the one I provided?
 * But, once again, let me point you towards UNIGUIDE, what I see as the relevant guideline supporting my edit.

Noted people — This section is not for a list of famous alumni, but rather a description of notable academic staff and alumni presented in paragraph form. Summarize the number of affiliates and alumni who have won major scholarships (Rhodes, Fulbright, etc.), major awards (Nobel, Oscar, Pulitzer, etc.), served as heads of government or other major political office, or otherwise held elite or notable distinctions (astronauts, professional athletes, CEOs, etc.). Individuals who do not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline should not be included.
 * I have no idea what your comments about your talk page refer to, as obviously I have only discussed it here and not there. Perhaps you can clarify that as well. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This was a simple request to other editors to keep the discussion on this page where it belongs. As I have already explained, there was at one stage ( but maybe no longer ) a policy about alumni sections that made it clear that people could only be included in these sections if there were verifiable and reliable outside references about them attending the institution.  I have read the policy in the past ( after an edit of mine was reverted using this policy ) and have seen it invoked by other editors fairly recently.  This is why I considered your revert to be based on irrelevant criteria.  However, as the policy has now been removed from the page where I first read it, I can only assume that it has been changed ( I never thought it was such a good policy anyway ).  I hope this clarifies everything adequately. Afterwriting (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now that you have read the current policy (which does require notability, but not explicitly references), do you understand my edit restoring the notable alumni & faculty section? Or do you have additional suggestions for improvement, based on current guidelines? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)