Talk:MBA Rankings

Proposal to delete this article

I don't agree that this article should exist. The prose is a copy of what's already in the Master of Business Administration article. Because this is an encyclopedia, the article should be about rankings, not a place where rankings are actually listed. In fact, the prose rather contradicts the need for listing rankings — especially from a single source when many are available, which is a violation of WP:NPOV. The whole point of the prose is that these lists have flaws and aren't well suited to individual education needs. -Amatulic 22:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is useful as it keeps a history of rankings, which will be removed from the FT website with time. They only keep a 3 yr history online. If you do not like the text in the article feel free to modify it and not delete it. Daviegold 15:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Highlighting only Financial Times rankings is a violation of WP:NPOV. There are other online ranking sources, as indicated in the External Links section of the MBA article.
2. The FT rankings were reverted by someone else as they are copyright violations violating WP:COPYVIO. Once those are removed, you have a redundant article with MBA. The consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MBA Rankings was to delete this article and redirect back to MBA.
3. Please continue this discussion on Talk:Master of Business Administration. -Amatulic 15:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Hi. As the person responsible for starting the MBA rankings article, I would prefer if this discussion was continued until a consensus is achieved.

I feel this article is important for a variety of reasons, and that it makes sense to keep it under a separate heading from the MBA article.

Firstly it preserves a history of program rankings that the web site links delete over time. This allows readers to see how consistently a university has maintained its position in the top ten.

Secondly it allows people to add other rankings to the article. Currently 3 years of FT history, and one year of Business Week history are up there. I hope with time this will grow. It would be nice to see the piece eventually turn into a one stop shop for available rankings.

Thirdly, as this piece grows, it would be somewhat off topic for the MBA article, and I feel that it is already too large a sidebar, and somewhat off topic from the central piece. That is why I put it up as a separate page.

I think the reason that this article is somewhat controversial is that because there are numerous different rankings, people whose school, appears in one, and not another get offended. To those upset that their University is not included in one of the two lists provided, I encourage you to add the list in which they are included rather than taking the whole piece down.

Sorry for such a long argument, but I feel this is a useful article, and am upset to see it just blanked by another user, rather than allowing the discussion run to completion. Daviegold 11:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Per the AfD resolution, please continue this discussion on Talk:Master of Business Administration. -Amatulic 20:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)