Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survey on NIT

: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. J04n(talk page) 04:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

=[[Survey on NIT]]=

:{{la|Survey on NIT}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Survey_on_NIT Stats])

:({{Find sources|Survey on NIT}})

The current state of the article is nothing but original research -- not only does it not provide any criteria by which the judgments are made, but it even states that survey information from respected institutions such as the Times of India is ignored. However, importing ranking lists from other sites may run into copyright problems. I'm not sure how one can maintain such an article without violations of guidelines. ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

:Strong delete. Not salvageable at all. This looks like someone trying to use Wikipedia to legitimize his/her own opinions on these Indian universities. —KuyaBriBriTalk 23:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Delete. The article is a classic case of WP:OR. Salih (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

No it is an original ranking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.209.209.28 (talk • contribs)

  • That is precisely the problem. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original writings, it is a summary of what reliable sources have to say on subjects. There are no reliable sources for the information behind this survey. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete – No sources for anything. It's all original research. –TCN7JM 02:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: as per nom.--GDibyendu (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2013 (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.