Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Indian engineering college rankings


 * 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. Nobody wants to keep the article, so there you are. I'm also userfying it as requested.  Sandstein  17:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Indian engineering college rankings

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The list doesn't specify a certain year, and looking at the article history, the 2013 rankings have been removed. This list (at least in the way it is currently handled) would require maintenance every year, and is a good example of recentism. I suppose a solution would be to organize it differently, in the same manner as the Rankings of universities in Brazil, or year specific such as THE–QS World University Rankings, 2005. A huge unwieldy table is currently the majority of the article, so at the very least the article should be blown up. Perhaps some of the info that was previously removed should be restored to show a historical perspective, and give the article merits to be kept. But as it currently exists it should go, hence my nomination. I'll withdraw if my suggested changes or another appropriate fix is made. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. There was a recent list AfD that had the same problems with sourcing and dating. The decision in that case was "keep" but after serious culling. Maybe that's the answer here but these type of articles will always be subject to frequent changes based on POV pushing editors who believe that their college, city etc. is the best. Trying to keep this in a proper state will always be a Sisyphean task, even if it is blown up and restarted. Philg88 ♦talk 05:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Maintenance issues aren't significant: everything is dated, and the worst that would happen is that the information would be a little out of date and clearly indicated as such. The real question as I see it is whether we want rankings with this level of detail: all colleges yes, engineering colleges maybe not. Doubtless this can be organised better, and there will be debates on which rankings and colleges to include/exclude, but that is part of the normal editing process and absolutely not reason for deletion. Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't a news site. It either needs to be dated and preserved with a new article each year, or each year preserved (in a different manner than it is currently) within one article. I linked examples in my opening rationale. As it is now, it should go. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 17:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think a background on how colleges and universities in India work is necessary. For the most part, engineering colleges are essentially independent entities unaffiliated with, say, arts colleges or law schools. It would not make sense to compare all Indian colleges, making as much sense as comparing apples and oranges. The system is distinctly different from the prevailing way of doing things in the U.S., where each independent university has different faculties ranging from Arts to Zoology, which gives some (however little) basis for comparison. This does mean that there should (in my opinion) theoretically be articles on "List of Indian law school rankings", "List of Indian xyz college rankings". I can see why that can be a bit too much fuss, but I've got no better ideas. MikeLynch (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is way too much a directory-style article, and we are indeed not the news. I believe that we are seriously overstepping the boundaries of what is "encyclopedic" in these kinds of articles. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't remember how I came across this list, but since February I have been active in trying to keep it accurate and legible. Currently it contains the details from three surveys published in 2014 and two published in 2015. Two of the 2014 survey publishers have now released their own 2015 editions, so some editors are trying to add numbers from those surveys in too. I recognize the current system is unmanageable as a "running tally". Personally, I like the idea of forking it off into separate 2014 and 2015 articles, but perhaps that's because it is my effort which is at risk of being deleted here. On the other hand, I see the validity in the deletion arguments., you said you would withdraw if an appropriate fix is made. But would it be inappropriate to split these into 2014 and 2015 articles in the middle of an AFD? Also, would ' concern about it being a news directory still be valid? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To me an appropriate fix would be a historical perspective on the rankings, going back as long as they've been ranked. If the article became too long then it could be slit into years. Much smaller tables with a bit less info for each year would be appropriate. The other issue perhaps greater than what I originally brought up, is (as Colapeninsula mentioned) whether we want an article with rankings about engineering colleges specifically (as opposed to one simply on all Indian colleges). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 02:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the history of the article, I think there is enough material in previous revisions that we could go back to 2010. I mentioned 2014 & 2015 as they form the basis of the current article.
 * As for Colapeninsula's point, overall college rankings are certainly a valid topic, but I think separate rankings of different academic fields is also equally valid. From a practical point of view, the target audience of this article is potential students. (Potential employers may find it useful to see how a job candidate from a school they've never heard of measures up, but hopefully this isn't the basis of their judgement.) For an Indian kid who wants to be a software engineer, how Bombay Tech. ranks compared to Madras Law School isn't going to be very useful for them. As far as notabililty goes, I think the topic meets Wikipedia's criteria because rankings specific to engineering colleges are being published by multiple sources. I would agree it was a problem if the numbers were being cherry-picked from rankings of colleges in general. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't have any objections if you wanted to request the article be userfied. That'd give you more time to work on it, it wouldn't be as visible for the moment, and it could be moved back to the article namespace when the appropriate changes are made. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment. When I started this article, the vision that I had, if I may, was for it to develop on the lines of List of United States graduate business school rankings (which is currently a featured list with two orange notices on top of the article, but whatever). However, I don't see that happening. From experience, I can say that this is a rather nebulous subject in India. Hardly anyone takes rankings seriously (except for publicity purposes when a college is ranked higher): the ranking methodologies are often not made public, many colleges do not participate in surveys at all, and in the overall scheme of things, national rankings do not matter because admissions are largely taken care of at the state level. Anyway, I would tend towards supporting deletion if there is no consensus for a good restructuring (perhaps limiting the list to just 25 ranks per survey, or something like that?). As it stands, the list is unwieldy and largely unhelpful. I will comment on the specificity aspect above. MikeLynch (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfy Since this discussion has come to a halt somewhat, I will volunteer to have it userfied to my userspace. I will split the current contents into 2014 and 2015 articles, plus try to create other articles for previous years from earlier revisions of the article. Another issue that has touched on is the criteria for inclusion. Previously on the article's talk page, I proposed a fairly generous requirement of being ranked in the top 50 of at least two surveys. I am open to any other suggestions. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2015 (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.