Talk:List of Ivy League business schools: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:02, 21 April 2006

Latest revision as of 23:21, 18 January 2025

(147 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{oldafdfullOld AfD multi |date=104 April,January 2025 2006|result='''keepno consensus''' |votepagepage=List of Ivy League business schools (4th nomination)}}

{{Old XfD multi

| date = April 10 2006

| result = '''Keep'''

| link = //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ivy_League_business_schools

| date2 = August 15 2006

| result2 = '''Keep'''

| link2 = //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ivy_League_business_schools_(2nd_nomination)

| date3 = January 22 2011

| result3 = '''Keep'''

| link3 = //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Ivy_League_business_schools

}}

{{Talkheader}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=List|

{{WikiProject Lists|importance=low}}

{{WikiProject Higher Education}}

{{WikiProject Business}}

}}

==Response to Gekko's reversions==

== Sources in table ==

This is in response to Gekko's reversions.

First a little background on Gekko/MBAguy. The user MBAguy submitted an AfD nom for this article - his nom failed. He argued with people who voted to keep the article. He also tried to undermine the voting process by making 6 consecutive vandalisms to this article in the middle of the voting process, hoping to sway the vote in his favor. His vandalism included spraying the article all over with rankings talk, instead of adding a link to rankings in the article's External Links section. This article is about schools, not rankings. One suggestion was that MBAguy create a new School Rankings article, and then link to it. He ignored any constructive suggestions.

Please note that the source listed in the table are for the content of the table, including degrees offered and admission stats. This content cannot be included in the article without a reliable source. [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 20:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

During the nom process, if your vote didn't agree with his AfD nom, MBAguy didn't want to hear it. He told one voter with whom he disagreed that "Ivy League is devoid of any significance." My own misfortune was that I had the audacity to vote "Keep", and MBAguy didn't like that. He responded angrily to my vote and wouldn't let it go. He said Wikipedia should ban this article because "Ivy League" equates to "boosterism". When MBAguy decided he had embarrassed himself enough, he edited the vote discussion to remove his responses to those whose votes he didn't like. Result was that his AfD nom failed.

:@[[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] Maybe it shouldn't be included in the article then? [[User:Jjazz76|Jjazz76]] ([[User talk:Jjazz76|talk]]) 20:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Right after MBAguy's nom failure, a user named Gekko began reverting article changes so that MBAguy's vandalisms reappear in this article and other users' new content are expunged. Gekko's user page shows his account was created April 15, 2006 and within a few short hours, he's already rv'ing this article. Newbie Gekko's rv comments show he's very familiar with deleting content, rv's, policies, discussion pages, procedures, nominations, etc. This all makes Gekko/MBAguy's sleazy tactics very suspicious. After tangling with voters in the nom process, he's now tangling with those who want to clean up the article to remove MBAguy's vandalism. His actions show he intends to continue vandalizing and junking up this article. Gekko/MBAguy's habit of putting rankings stuff all over the article, makes the article worse, not better, which is his clear intention. We can probably expect Gekko/MBAguy or whichever user name he creates next to submit a new AfD for this article within a few months. [[User:GO WHARTON|GO WHARTON]] 18:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

::Not every source has to be about all six Ivy League business schools, just enough to prove notability of the group. However, all content in the article needs a source. For example, there was no source stating where the business schools are located, pretty essential content for any list. Since ''U.S. New & World Report'' covers everything in the tables and also covers all six universities evenly, it is an ideal secondary source for this situation. I think the degrees offered is pretty key content too. I am fine cutting admission percentages as that constantly changes. [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 20:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::@[[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] - I understand why you re-inserted them, I am just skeptical of sources that don't actually mention them in relation them to the topic of the article. US News & World doesn't mention their status as Ivy League business schools. So I'm just wondering why that info is worth including on THIS page as opposed to simply the CBS page or the HBS page. It just feels like we are sort of making the jump from "x topic is notable" to "let's use X's notability to make an admission guide for X." I think that cutting admissions percentages is a smart move, because it doesn't seem that we have a RS to discuss admissions percentages in relationship to their status as Ivy League business schools, or maybe I missed it!

::I should probably just delete your rant as libellous against me, but I'm sure someone else will instead. As I said on your talk page (which you [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GO_WHARTON&diff=prev&oldid=48862914 deleted]), I am not user MBAguy. I have been a Wikipedia user since last year (not since this month, as you lie about me) and seem to have been drawn into some bizarre edit war you're having with that user. Please leave me out of it, but if you want to delete useful content, please discuss it here and reach consensus before doing so. - [[User:Gekko|Gekko]] 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:::I'm sort of thinking about this page in relation to some of the other college and university lists I've seen and worked on, and this one feels more like an admissions brochure.

:::That said - I appreciate your engagement on this topic! I think we have a better page that has some nice history and reasonable categories to explain the issues of notability. [[User:Jjazz76|Jjazz76]] ([[User talk:Jjazz76|talk]]) 21:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Do you really want to discuss rankings graffiti/vandalism? Everything you said above is of a personal nature. Please stick to the rankings vandalism topic. You're rv'ing the article again, saying you want a discussion of rankings graffiti "usefulness" while refusing real discussion. Why did you delete and revert (without discussion, by the way) the new content paragraph that was added, and why do you want to plaster rankings up and down this article? The article was spray-painted with rankings by MBAguy in the middle of the nom voting process. After the nom process completed, an edit was made to tone down the rankings emphasis, but you quickly did lots of rv's to delete all new content (without discussion) and stick all of MBAguy's rankings graffiti back in. Why? [[User:GO WHARTON|GO WHARTON]] 15:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

::::I'll go ahead and cut the admissions data from the table, since we both agree. If I were going to continue improving this article, I would add a section on the growth of other MBA programs and how it has changed the rankings and perception of the big six. That would help balance the promotional feel. For example, Forbes now ranks a non-Ivy as its no. 1 MBA school. Also, one study found that recent Stanford MBAs had slightly higher salaries but paid less for their degree.

::::My general thought is that this should have remained a regular article, rather than being moved to a list article where someone felt the need to fluff the table's contents. Sometimes people think a list is a good way to fight an AfD but it is often harder to fight an AfD for a list article because the requirements are so specific. That being said, as someone who has created a ton of list articles related to higher ed, it is pretty typical to include ___location whenever a college is listed in a table. A lot of slack is given for info that is known to be included in another article but I felt the need to be cautious because this is in AfD. [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 22:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Suggestion for Gekko: why don't you add a link in the External Links section to your favorite ranking, or you could create a new School Rankings article and put a link to your new article at the bottom of this article. After all, this is not a rankings article. [[User:GO WHARTON|GO WHARTON]] 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::If this list article is not deleted - which doesn't seem likely as the current discussion appears to be trending toward a "no consensus" close - then I agree that it would be better served changed into a "regular" article. [[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]] ([[User talk:ElKevbo|talk]]) 23:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::@[[User:ElKevbo|ElKevbo]]: Glad you answered. I almost included you to see what you thought. I love lists but I think we can better achieve a neutral/non-promotional tone through text than in a table with this subject. [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 23:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

'''NOTE TO ALL''': READ the comments here from [[User:GO WHARTON|GO WHARTON]] and decide for yourself what is going on. You can see that [[User:GO WHARTON|GO WHARTON]] is attempting to give the appearance of discussion whereas in fact he considers NPOV rankings information as "grafitti" while he reverts to his completely one-sided bit of Ivy League propaganda. The rankings I included (and I thank those reverting back to it) are not grafitti, this piece of propaganda masquerading as an article is grafitti. [[User:MBAguy|MBAguy]] 02:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::::@[[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] this all sounds very reasonable. It also sounds, given that I am new to AfDs that it is better to wait for an AfD to close before working on an article under AfD?

:::::::I'll also point at that there are a few other Ivy league x school articles out there (law, medicine, public policy) so I imagine wherever you land should be consistent-ish with them, and also across the higher ed space on Wikipedia which you know way better. [[User:Jjazz76|Jjazz76]] ([[User talk:Jjazz76|talk]]) 00:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:Please note that MBAguy/Gekko is now reordering the messages in this discussion so that he can force everyone to read his message first (even though it's not first in chronological order). ''(Page refactored to original order by [[User:JDoorjam|JDoorj]][[User:JDoorjam/Esperanza|<font color="green">a</font>]][[User:JDoorjam|m]] [[User Talk:JDoorjam|Talk]].))'' It's another of his bullying tactics in his war against this article. His bold face "NOTE TO ALL: READ" is MBAguy's way of screaming, "how dare anyone vote down MBAguy/Gekko's AfD." He is using lots of sleazy tactics to do an end around of the AfD voting process. His goal over time is to overload this article with his forced rankings talk, a little now, more later. Then he'll use his rankings-saturated version of this article as the reason to resubmit his AfD within the next few months. This article was neutral (see the "17:12, 9 March 2006" version) before MBAguy/Gekko declared his war against it, trying to force everyone to accept his POV and his extreme bias against the Ivy League. MBAguy/Gekko's history and tactics are very clear when one reviews the article revision history, the AfD voting discussion and history, and this article discussion history. MBAguy/Gekko is still beating his war drums ... [[User:GO WHARTON|GO WHARTON]] 17:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::::@[[User:Jjazz76|Jjazz76]]: It is not uncommon for someone to improve an article under AfD to address concerns of the nominator. In fact, that is often the best way to explore whether it is possible to meet notability.

::::::::Sometimes moving the article to a new name is part of the redirect discussion but, in my experience, the two topics work better as separate actions, mostly because there may be differing opinions. For example, people may agree on a Keeping the article but may not agree on moving to a new/former name. I don't think that is the issue here, but it is still cleaner to not mix the two issues. [[User:Rublamb|Rublamb]] ([[User talk:Rublamb|talk]]) 00:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:Crazy but true - MBAguy/Gekko has again escalated his war against the Ivy League. MBAguy/Gekko is now going throughout the Wikipedia encyclopedia and deleting all references, links, and mentions of Ivy League that he can find. Seems maybe MBAguy/Gekko wants to eradicate the Ivy League from civilization. [[User:GO WHARTON|GO WHARTON]] 17:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

::To MBAguy/Gekko: Your first involvement with this article was to submit an AfD. In your nomination, you harped that an article with Ivy League in it must be an "agenda," and that it must mean all Ivy Leaguers think they're "superior to others." However, none of your remarks are supported by the long-standing neutral tone of this article before you recently blasted onto the scene (see first message in this discussion for details). Your AfD nom was voted down, so you switched to your alter-ego Gekko. Under that name, you have the same arrogant tone and insistently reverted all new content (without discussion) in order to restore your article vandalisms during the voting process. I've constructively suggested often that you could put a link to your favorite rankings in the External Links section. I've also suggested that you could create a School Rankings article. You could then place a link to your new rankings article at the bottom of this article's page. Instead of discussing those possibilities, you switched back to MBAguy and wrote the above "NOTE TO ALL" which is the same harping about Ivy League, your personal issues, and boosterism that you stuck into the voting discussion. Seems as though you're trying to do an end-around of the AfD process. [[User:GO WHARTON|GO WHARTON]] 19:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

==Regarding Gekko/MBAguy's NPOV tag==

(Please see the discussion for this article which gives the history of Gekko/MBAguy's recent assaults on this article.) (Please also see the resulting discussion of MBAguy/Gekko's recent AfD which was overwhelmingly voted down by our fellow wikipedians.) Now, he seems to be attempting an end around of the AfD process. Prior to Gekko/MBAguy's recent declaration of war on this article, the article was neutral, as can be seen in the "17:12 9 March 2006" version of this article. Since Apr. 3, 2006, however, an onslaught of sleazy tactics, graffiti, and vandalism has been perpetrated on this article, coincident with the arrival of MBAguy/Gekko. Regrettably, Gekko/MBAguy continues using his typical approach of vandalizing and complaining about the article, while shunning discussion on the merits and refusing to discuss many constructive suggestions offered to him. Gekko/MBAguy is clearly not interested in improving this article. His scheme appears to be to continually mutilate this article, so that he can resubmit his AfD in the upcoming months, using his mutilated version of the article as the reason for deletion of this article - all because of his belief that the term "Ivy League" equates to "boosterism," as he has said. His extreme tactics against this article do not seem to be in the Wikipedia spirit. Since MBAguy/Gekko has shown he has no interest in civil discourse, perhaps it would help if a third party would step in and help out here. [[User:GO WHARTON|GO WHARTON]] 16:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

::You sir are the one not interested in debate. But I don't have to tell you that, you know it. You were the first one to start reverting legitimate additions to tone down the NPOV of the article as "grafitti". Tell me, how exactly does adding objective rankings information represent a "POV"? Meanwhile, deleting it and adding puffery phrasing such as you have is clearly POV. [[User:MBAguy|MBAguy]] 21:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

:::(Please note that MBAguy/Gekko is now deliberately reordering the messages in this discussion.) MBAguy/Gekko, you have sunk to another new low in your all-out war against this article. Why are you reordering the messages in this discussion? You are again violating Wikipedia editing standards and making a mockery of Wikipedia discussion. Your latest bullying tactic of changing the order of the messages in this talk discussion, so that your message appears at the top of this page even though it's not the first chronological message in this discussion, shows your willingness to use any sleazy tactic in your all-out assault against this article. A number of constructive suggestions have been offered to you but you have ignored every constructive suggestion. You refuse to discuss anything. Remember, you initiated your war on this article when you tried to rig the Wikipedia AfD voting process because you didn't like the voting results (see the details in my previous messages above - well, my messages should be "above" unless you've again reordered all the messages in this discussion). Only one of your two alter-egos appeared during the voting discussion. But just after your AfD was voted down, both of your alter-egos, MBAguy and Gekko, went ballistic on this article, with the same arrogance and same language. Rigging the AfD voting, repetitive rv'ing without discussion, alter-egos, reordering discussion messages, which sleazy tactic will you use next? [[User:GO WHARTON|GO WHARTON]] 15:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)