Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBA 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The result was Nomination withdrawn. Redirected back to Master of Business Administration, editorial decisions can be discussed at Talk:Master of Business Administration. trialsanderrors 19:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

MBA Rankings
Delete. There are multiple concerns regarding this article:
 * 1) If you remove the lists of rankings (which are duplicated from the Financial Times web site), you're left with a nearly verbatim copy of the Rankings section in the Master of Business Administration article. This seems like needless duplication.
 * 2) The prose contradicts need for ranked lists of schools within the article.
 * 3) Wikipedia isn't a place to promote the opinions (i.e. rankings) of one source.  The original MBA article already provides external links to online MBA rankings from multiple sources, including from Financial Times.
 * 4) The prose already fits well in the MBA article and doesn't really need expanding. It hardly seems worth creating a whole new article around this section, if the only purpose is to regurgitate (and maintain) annual rankings already available online. -Amatulic 22:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn per recommendation below.


 * Delete, inherently non-NPOV. hateless 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine with merge without the actual rankings (as edited). hateless 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect Keep as acceptable content fork (i.e. not a POV fork). The topic itself is certainly notable, pages and pages have been filled about the MBA rankings controversy, and it isn't really central to the MBA article, which should be about the degree itself. So I propose to remove most of the text on rankings from the MBA article and post it here. Btw, I removed the rankings as copyvios. ~ trialsanderrors 22:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought of that too before I proposed this AfD, but after much thought I felt that the MBA Ranking section's short length wasn't worth its own separate article. It fits better with the MBA article because anyone looking for MBA ranking information would first look for it there. You're correct that much has been written about this topic, but it's sufficient and proper for such a volume of information to be referenced as citations (which has already been done) rather than expand the article to duplicate what's already written elsewhere. -Amatulic 23:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure enough. I guess a redirect would serve this purpose better then. ~ trialsanderrors 00:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Redirect back to MBA. Abstain for the moment. (Also I changed "keep" above to "redirect" per trialsanderrors latest comment.) I'm the author of the original text about rankings in the Master of Business Administration article. I admit it bothered me to see my work copied and pasted to a new MBA Rankings article and then slanted to favor Financial Times. I had considered creating a different article myself, but in the end I decided the MBA article was a better fit, for reasons described by others above. On the other hand, I don't object to the existence of the MBA Rankings article. I do object to having near-verbatim paragraphs in two places; one of them must go. I presently lean toward keeping it in the MBA article and redirecting MBA Rankings to it as trialsanderrors suggests. =Axlq 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree it should be in one spot. I think there are reasons to farm it out, since users searching for "MBA rankings" are probably familiar with the general info on the degree and are looking for specific information. As long as the article provides an encyclopedic rundown of the topic we should be home free. I also suggest withdrawing this nomination and leave the decision up to the editors of the article. I don't see an actual rationale for deletion. ~ trialsanderrors 05:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Points #1 and #4 in the nomination can be interpreted to support redirection. And there's no reason why a redirect link can't redirect to a specific section in another article, e.g. Master of Business Administration. =Axlq 14:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay everyone, I'm new at this deletion process, so help me out. This was my first-ever nomination. If the consensus is "redirect" back to MBA (which to me sounds the same as "delete the MBA Rankings article and redirect the title to Master of Business Administration", then that's simple enough. But how do I witdraw this nomination before it has run its 5-day course? -Amatulic 18:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect. It should be on the MBA page, especially since the rankings are so central to the topic. The rankings themselves are in the public domain seem to be fair use, however there's a real duty to explain both views of the pros and cons of rankings in themselves, as well as setting schools on a ladder. --Duncan 08:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Rankings are usually copyrighted (there is no need for fair use of they're in the public domain). I think partial explanatory listings of multiple rankings are acceptable, especially if the purpose is educational, e.g. comparison of methods and outcomes. Why is Stanford #1 in ranking A and #37 in ranking B. ~ trialsanderrors 09:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought I addressed that question in the article; those issues are dealt with pretty well in the referenced sources. The primary reasons for differences is that different publications use different populations of schools, and some rankings are based on subjective opinions given in interviews with alumni and hiring managers. I'll re-check and edit as appropriate. =Axlq 14:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This wasn't a criticism of your edits, just a general comment on when it is appropriate to use the actual rankings in the article from a coipyright law perspective. ~ trialsanderrors 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just strike out the nomination (Using &lt;s&gt; and &lt;/s&gt;) and write "withdrawn" below it. You can technically also close it yourself but I can take care of it if you're not comfortable with it. There's also a technical difference between "redirect" and "delete and redirect" as in the second case the edit history gets deleted. I don't see a reason for that here though. ~ trialsanderrors 18:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't know "delete" meant "delete the whole history". Nomination is withdrawn. -Amatulic 18:59, 20 October 2006 (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.