Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World's largest 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 keep; it may be worth discussing a possible rename on the article's talk page. The problem is that the delete arguments here don't seem to be based on policy ('useless' is a matter of opinion, has been contested, and the users with that opinion haven't explained why; 'unmaintainable' is more of an argument, but has also been contested (consensus here isn't clear about whether the article is maintainable), and the list doesn't seem to be intrinsically unmaintainable especially if its editors decide to adopt a cutoff). It is quite possible that the article needs some changes in scope or some improvements, but that's true of many articles and can be fixed by normal editing. --ais523 15:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

World's largest universities

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

The topic seems to be very subjective. There are various 45 Universities on this list, but there's no set criteria for who is included, and so forth. Thus the list is unmaintainable, and should be deleted. GreenJoe 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no way anyone would devote the time to keep this list up to date. Delete.
  radio me!) 00:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to World's largest universities by enrollment, which is what this actually is listing, I think. Then someone will have to create World's largest universities by land area, World's largest universities by budget, and on and on. (sigh -- more listcruft) I would only recommend deleting an article like this if it was the subjective type of, say, World's largest universities by impact on society. Accounting4Taste 00:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • My issue with those is, especially the enrollment, at what threshold do you set for who is and isn't included? GreenJoe 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I see your point, and I wasn't claiming this was going to be a good article -- I suppose any university with a way of substantiating its enrollment could be on the list -- but I can't see any reason to delete this according to WP:LIST. I could be wrong, this is the first time I've tried to consider that criterion, and I'm prepared to change my mind if it's demonstrated that I've misinterpreted WP:LIST, which I didn't consider exhaustively. Accounting4Taste 00:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep [+ and rename]Provided the list is cut down to those "mega universities" identified in academic literature (e.g. that by Daniel, etc.), or alternatively renamed to "list of universities with >100k students". 100k is of course an arbitrarily set number, but I think a significant one. The list would at least not be potentially infinite. I agree there are some shortcomings with this article, but I also think the information is useful and valid, at least in some form. As an aside, we also have the equally subjective (if not more so...)
  List of largest United States universities by enrollment...if one goes, so must the other, but I would personally keep both, at least in some form. Badgerpatrol 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak delete - seems not very useful. This mixed multi-campus university systems with mega-universities. You can go to a "Cal State University" campus and have it be the size of a high school. Most people considers each campus a seperate university. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsRover (talk • contribs) 01:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people do consider them separate universities...but as an actual fact, they're not. Some extremists consider Cornwall to be out with the United Kingdom- but we don't describe it as such here on Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 01:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• delete - the list appears to be fatally flawed, and no one is maintaining it. back in january i made a number of strong objections to the facts presented -- many of the numbers appear quite suspect, there is no consistent criterion at all for addressing what counts as a university vs. a system of universities or even what counts as a university at all (see my comments concerning "open universities"), and the listing appears largely based on a single source who is far from objective (he's an active promoter of open universities). in the meantime, however, no one has addressed any of these issues or done any fact-checking. i don't object to the idea of having such a list, in theory, but given the tremendous flaws of this page and the total lack of maintenance, i think it would be better deleted. Benwing 04:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes- and with respect, your comments were rather insulting and largely reflect your snobbishly ill-informed attitude towards distance learning universities. I can't speak for many of those on the list, but The Open University in the UK is in every way a "normal" university- with a campus, a full complement of full and part-time staff, a large community of full-time on-site postgraduates and a reasonable ranking for research quality. Like any university, its charter is incorporated by the Privy Council, and the University was largely founded by Harold Wilson. I agree that the sourcing of the article could be looked at, although the "far from objective" source you are referring to is I presume Sir John Daniel, an acknowledged expert on the subject of higher education and a senior figure in both the Commonwealth Secretariat and UNESCO. The article could be improved, but the subject is not non-notable. Badgerpatrol 10:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, the ONLY thing the article needs is a properly defined cutoff for inclusion (say >100K students). That way it automatically becomes maintainable. It is already referenced, so that is not an issue. Once, more, these kind of articles are what WP is good at, like it or not. If we start deleting all these nice, although slightly trivial, articles, not much useful information will be left here to read. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless. JJL 13:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a topic of legitimate encyclopedic interest, and useful for people researching the way universities are structured around the world. I don't see any problem with having an arbitrary cutoff to the length of the list (whether by number of entries or by minimum population), just as I don't see any problem with having it in lists of tallest buildings, longest bridges, largest lakes, tallest mountains, most populated cities, etc. And we do have lists on all of those topics, and I hope no one will argue that they should be deleted. --Itub 14:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WAX. GreenJoe 14:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Please read that essay before citing it. --Itub 14:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, let me quote from the nutshell of that article (which, incidently, was written by me): "Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions; Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)". --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is, Itub, that you can't point to the existence of another article as a reason to keep or delete this one. We have lots of article that shouldn't be one way or another, but are. GreenJoe 14:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can also read the polluted pond example at User:Master Thief Garrett/Don't add sewage to the already polluted pond. There are lots of ponds that are polluted, but we don't keep adding sewage. GreenJoe 14:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The essay
          WP:AADD is disputed by many editors (for various, often good, reasons). Ofcourse he can point out that we have similar articles on other topics. Its a fair argument and should not be dismissed solely on the basis of this, often misunderstood, essay. And have you even considered the possiblity that none of these articles are in fact "sewage"? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 14:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
        • So, to clarify GJ, are you saying that the examples given by Itub (buildings, bridges, mountains, etc.) should all be deleted? Are you against lists generally? Badgerpatrol 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was talking particularly about the part of the essay that says "Although these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; so an entire comment should not be dismissed because of a comparative statement like this." Yes, other crap exists. But are the lists about bridges, buildings, cities, etc. crap? Obviously not, since maybe a dozen of them are
          featured lists, and exemplify Wikipedia's finest work according to the consensus of the many editors who participated in their nomination discussions. Now, if you think that my analogy is invalid, please give actual arguments rather than a link. The main point I want to make is that having a cutoff for a list of tallest/biggest/etc. things is not a problem by itself, since many good lists have cutoffs. --Itub 15:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • I'm not saying the other lists are crap, or that we shouldn't have them. What I was trying to say is that they're not comparable. This isn't by the size of the building, it's by the population. So how do we determine who's on the list, etc? There are some small Universities on there that I wouldn't consider a "mega university." From the little bit of criteria in the article itself, the determination seems to be very arbitrary. GreenJoe 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<unindent> So would you also be in favour of keep and rename to "universities with >100k students", or similar? I think what you are saying is that scope of the article should be more clearly specified and the piece improved, but not outright deleted? Badgerpatrol 15:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See, I'm not sure on that. Because for example, if we say over 100k students, by what definition is that a mega or large University? It gets into the realm of
  original research. --GreenJoe 16:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • List of tallest buildings in Providence. A fun size Milky Bar to the first person who puts their hand up and tells what all these lists have in common... Badgerpatrol 16:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • They're all featured? GreenJoe 18:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bingo. They're all featured, and they all use a "100k students" style "arbitrary" cut off (e.g. 400 ft high etc), exactly the same as proposed here, or in some cases quote no clear inclusion criterion at all. And there are numerous other such examples. Badgerpatrol 20:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused how 'mega university' would be original research, when it is published in a well-recognised, well-cited book (Daniel's), there are conferences/an association, and it is studied/reported on by organisations like the World Bank? Am I missing something fundamental about OR? Natebailey 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "World's largest university systems". As the article points out, the University of California in this definition includes Berkley, UCLA, UC-Irvine, etc. Most of us, I think, base the size of a university on the number of students enrolled at a particular campus. As a list of the number of persons enrolled in a university organization, it's useful to some extent. Mandsford 21:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that would work, as many places don't have University systems. It needs to be more clearly defined if kept. GreenJoe 22:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • most of us base the size of a university on the number of students enrolled at a particular campus - actually, I think this is a US perspective, based on the fact that US system campuses tend to act a lot more independently than campuses of comparative institutions elsewhere (eg. Australia, Europe, etc.). Natebailey 22:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: this is why this list isn't very useful. Its misleading. Someone enrolled at
      California State University, Channel Islands is going to the 7th largest university in the world? Also CSU really includes community colleges, too. If you want to mix apples and oranges that title of article really should be World's largest universities or university systems for the ones in the US MarsRover 23:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Analogues exist in the UK, not sure whether the American idea practice is based on the British model, vice versa, or neither, but the University of London and University of Wales are two that are more or less akin to the "system university" of autonomous institutions within an overarching federal framework. The point is, my understanding is that, for example, the university system of California is referred to as "University of California", as in "University of California at Santa Barbara", or whatever. The article can only relate the information as stated by the institutions themselves, not make judgements as to what is or isn't actually a university as opposed to a system of universities. There already is a very clear note in the introduction explaining this point. (Although I'm certainly not against a rename if a short and informative title can be found). Badgerpatrol 00:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — An interesting list about a notable fact. It would be helpful if the table had a cut-off size to constrain the list, and also listed the year at which each value was reached. Mandsford's comment about a rename may make some snese. — RJH (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Contrary to the claim at the top of this page, the page is quite maintainable; I have been doing so for a long time. Many universities include this basic information in relatively easy to find places (ie. in the 'about' section of their website). Some don't include it at all, and so one has to find out from secondary sources (eg. Daniel's book, World Bank reports, etc.) or via email to university administrators. There is literally nowhere else in the world that this information is reported in an up-to-date format (which is why I have invested a lot of effort in gathering and curating this information). I am happy with a rename ('by enrolment' sounds like an improvement). FWIW, I raised the question of a minimum in the discussion page (see
  Talk:World's_largest_universities#US_public_universities). I think this information is valuable to those interested in researching universities or reporting on them (I came across many newspaper citations of the form "XXX is the n-th largest university in the world", most of which were unsubstantiated, cf. this page which has direct references in most cases, and secondary references as well, where they can be found and are relatively up to date.) Natebailey 22:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Keep and improve. Rather that divide this up in to articles by various criteria, we should expand this to show the criteria. The usually one is number of students--although this has a traditionally different definition between the anglo-american and the Continental european patterns.--and, the article seems to show, the Asian pattern. Reliable data is available from various sources, and i can not see what is means by "impossible to maintain" except that the nom. does not wish to maintain it. Now f we were to try a list of worlds best universities, then there might be some problems about criteria. :) i would change the name to "university systems" or at least make that very clear in the documentation. DGG (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.