Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 100 Global Universities


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Top 100 Global Universities

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - there do not appear to be any independent reliable sources that establish the notability of this list. There are sources that mention it in passing as part of a source about another topic and there is the occasional press release-style announcement from one of the universities on the list, but nothing that offers significant coverage of the topic "Top 100 Global Universities". PROD removed with the usual unsubstantiated claim of notability. Otto4711 (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete It's a list of the Newsweek's top 100 global universities. Aside from being a borderline copyright issue (difficult to say if the list itself is protected), the article has no additional content. Wikipedia is not here to reproduce magazine content. Shadowjams (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with the other two main lists--much more useful and informative that way, and then it will not give the appearance of copyvio--which it is not, for its a very fbried summary--theeir discussion and justification of it, not this list, is tthe actual text, this is just a summary.DGG (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which lists? And does that mean pasting the entire list into that article (because that's all that's there now)? I don't believe that's encyclopedic material, not to mention potential copyright issues. Shadowjams (talk) 06:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the shanghai and the Times Education Supplement--sorry--its in the lede paragraph  of the article, so I thought it would be clear. DGG (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (with qualifiers): If it is allowed by fair use and copyright standards, I'd say this is useful information and should remain. This Newsweek standing is often mentioned in articles (both on Wikipedia and in the media at large) about various universities (see the list of linking articles).  I think if a reader is going through the Purdue article, for example, they might very well be interested in how it compares with other schools on the list and this article makes that possible.  I am not particularly concerned that it is just replicating magazine material, since it is unclear how long the msnbc page is going to remain (it looks like an archive page that could disappear at any time) and it's not a page that's particularly forthcoming in a google search.  However, while I think the information in the article is useful and notable enough, whether it falls under the category of plagiarism is not as clear to me as it seems to be to Shadowjams.  I think if it were as simple as he says, other, more famous, surveys would also be replicated on Wikipedia (THES and Shanghai Jiaotong being the most obvious).  To me this seems more of a fair use question than a notability question.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. First, this is inherently subjective, therefore not encyclopedic. (I challenge you to verify this list from multiple sources. There's only one: Newsweek. Other lists of best universities do not put them in the same order). I'm guessing it's also biased towards English language universities although there do seem to be some non-Anglo entries. Lastly, and probably least relevant, how good a university is depends on what you're studying. (If you're in Philosophy for example, Harvard is not number 1). Overall ranking means very little; usually these lists are measures of prestige more than measures of quality. Hairhorn (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: While it's of course true that ranking universities is a very subjective process, this is a list of schools as ranked by Newsweek in 2006. Therefore the material is not subjective in the way Wikipedia is concerned about (ie it is not editor generated opinion) but rather a faithful representation of a verifiable list (created by what is incidentally and reliable source, Newsweek).  TastyCakes (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course I understand that this is "a list of schools as ranked by Newsweek in 2006". But then I have to pull out arguments already made above, for example that this simply reposts the list and adds no real content to it. It's just wikipedia-as-web-depository. Hairhorn (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there is some merit to that argument. Convenience is my only counter-argument, as it would be for many lists on Wikipedia such as list of countries by population or List of countries by GDP (nominal).  TastyCakes (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but those are objectively verifiable lists, as well as the bread and butter of paper encyclopedias. Hairhorn (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, copyvio, Newsweek's intellectual property. Surveys such as this, based upon subjective criteria, are not fair use-eligible.  You could write an article about the list but you can't have the list here.  The page it links to specifically says © 2009 Newsweek, Inc..  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I support deletion on the article, and I believe the copyright is problematic, but the argument for keeping it is not that it would be a fair use (taking a whole work is rarely a fair use, although not always) but that a bare list is not itself protected. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If you're going to write an article about the list, then the article needs to be notable as demonstrated by third party sources. There's no indication here that the list is notable, just because Newsweek published it, just as individual news stories aren't notable, despite being published by the New York Times, or columns published by Paul Krugman aren't [usually] themselves notable. So it would need some sources in addition to what it has now that indicate the list has some notability. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, copyvio list. feydey (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The name of the article should be changed because it is based on some subjective criterias. NewsWeek's 2009 Top 100 Universities List may do it. Kasaalan (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2009 (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.