Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webometrics Ranking of World 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 No consensus on main article, merge sub-article into it. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Webometrics Ranking of World Universities

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Adding the following article to this AfD as being a specific year instance of the ranking; if the overall site/ranking is non-notable, then each individual year's ranking must be as well.

Website is a ranking of Universities based on "web presence." While it does appear to be a useful site, and run by a reliable research body, but I can't find any indication the ranking itself meets WP:GNG or WP:WEB. Google News Archive shows exactly 1 hit; Google produces a number of hits but all the company itself, blogs, or school press releases; Google Scholar produces a handful of hits, but the mentions either seem to be in passing or to be written by the same scholars that run the Ranking site. As such, I don't believe this ranking/website meets WIkipedia guidelines for notability. If other reliable, independent sources exist, of course, the article could be kept. If the article is deleted, some of the info could be merged into Cybermetrics Lab, the research group running the Ranking system. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment the Webometrics Ranking of World Universities, 2009 article should be bundled into this nomination. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bundled above. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge both. See sources at Google Scholar and references to the article itself. . The listing is one of the major listings of university standings; it presents a different perspective from the ones based on reputation or publications. (its not copyvio, because the actual listing is the bare summary--the actual paper is much more complex. Though I consider the paper notable in its own right quite apart from the actual rankings that resulted from the method, it would make sense to present them together.    DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: As mentioned above, the Google Scholar articles were primarily written by JL Ortega, who is one of the creators and administrators of the Webometrics site. Thus, they don't count as reliable, independent sources (to me).  I can't access scholarly jounrals, but based on what shows up in the searches, those that weren't written by Ortega appear to mention the site only in passing.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment May I suggest to all of you to have a look in here About the ranking, please pay special attention to the bottom of the page in which there are 4 published articles in reputed journals on the field regarding the ranking and its methodology. If the fact that our ranking has passed through a peer review process from the scientific community, it is not enough for you to consider that it is a reputed source in the field of university rankings, then I don't really know what a reliable resource could mean to you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webometrics editor (talk • contribs) 12:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC) Webometrics editor (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: All four of those appear to be written by employees of the very organization that publishes the Webometrics rankings.  I don't see that they add anything to the notability discussion.  JohnInDC (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Request: I've just started engaging with the Webometrics researchers on my talk page, and I think that it is at least possible that we might be getting somewhere. I don't know if this will eventually result in a notable article, but I think they're recognizing that Wikipedia notability means something quite different than a commonplace notion of notability, and I'm pointing them now to what they need to do to meet our standards.  I'd like to request that this AfD be re-listed to give this dialogue a little more time to continue; barring that, I do request that, if the closing admin does decide to go ahead and close and delete, that the main page (not the list pages) be userfied under my account so that I can keep working with the group until I'm sure there's no where to go. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: One argument being made by the individuals in the company is that, since they rank over 12,000 schools, they often rank schools that are not covered on any other list--especially schools in South America, East Asia, etc. A Google Search does confirm that this is mentioned on many school websites, although each mention appears to mostly be only in passing.  Thus, I wonder whether or not it is possible for a very large number of passing mentions is enough to override the need for several significant mentions?  I myself am not decided, and leave the question to others, here.  Qwyrxian (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep main article, merge annual lists into it. The company members are partly right in their claim that for the bottom-placed institutions, Webometrics is often the only list they are in. I have added some refs for the case of Namibia where the company is a well-known brand among academics. I can also vouch for its importance in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa--other developing countries might be in the same situation. Searching in the appropriate languages might discover more refs and subsequently a fulfillment of WP:GNG. --Pgallert (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't how that argument can help their case. They could rank all universities in the world, but if it's a non-notable ranking, then it wouldn't make any difference. Evenfiel (talk) 12:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The point they're claiming is that these universities in areas like South America, etc., that are not covered by the "big" surveys instead actually use the Webometrics survey to enhance their reputation. Note, for example, the citations that Pgallert added from Namibia as what I assume are a common example. I haven't heard from the COI team recently, but I feel like I'm leaning a little more towards keeping (only the main article, not the yearly articles). In essence, I'm wondering if this survey is notable, but it's just our WP:Systemic bias that keeps us from seeing it. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2010 (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.