Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CWUR World University 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. Not mentioned in the article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=College_and_university_rankings&oldid=503886764 this version])  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

=[[CWUR World University Rankings]]=

:{{la|CWUR World University Rankings}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/CWUR_World_University_Rankings Stats])

:({{Find sources|CWUR World University Rankings}})

Ranking does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Ranking (and organization, for that matter) was created in July 2012 by Nadim M. Mahassen, an assistant professor at King Abdulaziz University (see [http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/cwur.org WHOIS], [http://www.kau.edu.sa/Contacts.aspx?Site_ID=130&Lng=en&Cont=32 KAU faculty website], [https://registrarism.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/a-new-world-ranking-of-universities/ Registrarism]). Any citations attributable to CWUR merely report the ranking received, but no significant coverage of the ranking itself exists. This appears to be a ranking created and marketed by a non-notable academic, and its promotion on Wikipedia early on in the ranking's existence (July 8) is troublesome. For these reasons, I believe this article should be deleted. —Eustress talk 19:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

: Delete A search on Google News and Google Books reveals essentially no coverage of this rather dubious ranking. Since it is very easy to create a ranking methodology and set up a website giving the results (potentially very useful for self-promotion or promotion of an agenda) I think we should go on the side of caution here and wait for more coverage. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2012 (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.