Rajalakshmi Engineering College was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities, and colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the discussion, and see the project's article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing articles
There seems to be a bit of an edit-war breaking out over whether the controversy about the WUDC tournament at REC should be included in the WUDC section of the page. Rather than continuing an edit war, let's discuss the issue here and come to a consensus. Wieno (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether the tournament section itself should be mentioned in the university's page, as other universities don't do so for their respective tournaments. However, given what has happened with the tournament based on what I've been hearing, I don't think it's unreasonable that the controversy be given some space. --Sky Harbor(talk)22:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just reverted the last IP that added it. The "controversy" is sourced to twitter and a blog, which is inappropriate. The rest of the material is related to the tournament and is fine, but the controversy, if any, would need to have stronger sources or it needs to be left off the article. §FreeRangeFrogcroak18:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's only inappropriate if it's not reliable. Self-published sources shouldn't be used as secondary sources, but they can be carefully used as primary sources where they are only used to establish clear facts. Further, self-published sources can be acceptable where the publisher is an expert in the subject matter. In regards to this article, the only tweet linked was from the official Chennai WUDC account itself. I agree that contextualizing the motorcycle show cannot be based on that tweet, and there's nothing about the normal women's night, but the tweet is itself a reliable primary source for what happened that night of the tournament. In regards to the blogs, I can't speak to Achte Debate, but Alfred Snyder's site has been writing about interuniversity debate for two decades. Given how little published material there is on debating tournaments, Snyder probably can be considered an expert on the topic of university debating tournaments. His specialization in debate and rhetoric is also mentioned on the third-party University of Vermont website.[1]
This is the first the controversy section has been questioned on the basis of the reliability of the sources rather than whether it is notable enough to be considered part of the article, and it seemed like consensus had gone in favour of inclusion. In any event, I think that while better sources are being found for it, it's best to leave it in for now, so I'm reverting your edit and putting refimprove at the top of the section. Wieno (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem: There are three paragraphs. The first and third one refer in general terms to the championship, and the second to this controversy. That is sourced to this, which does not even mention the school, and this, which isn't even a verified twitter account, and thus not reliable. And this, which is a blog. Quite frankly that whole section is a whole bunch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on a good day. I'd highly recommend giving WP:RS a good read. §FreeRangeFrogcroak20:29, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to just purge the entire WUDC section from the school's page, I have no problem with that. If it's going to be included, I think the controversy around it can be reliably sourced. And yes, I've read the relevant policies, thank you. Wieno (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to purge anything - you can restore the neutral information and leave the "controversy" off, or properly source the controversy so it cannot be challenged. That's all. §FreeRangeFrogcroak16:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderstand me. Your edit involved removing the WUDC section in its entirety. I'm willing to let that become the new consensus. If the section is going to exist and your concern is that better sources are required, it's better to tag the problematic claims than to delete them, at least for a period of time. If there's a tagged claim, then it serves as an invitation for any reader who may be familiar with the event and other sources to get better sources. If it's just deleted, then nobody will know that there is a need for better sourcing. This is not a biography of a living person, and there is no need for what may be improperly sourced claims (and I disagree with you about whether some of the citations meet reliability guidelines) to be deleted immediately. Clearly there isn't a consensus here about reliability. As I'm sure you know, per WP:STATUSQUO the article before your deletion should be up until consensus is established, and reinstating your deletion after I reverted it is inappropriate.
I think a good case can be made that the WUDC section is not relevant to the article as a whole, and if that's your position I'm fine with leaving it out of the article completely. If we're going to include it, I'm happy to hash out each individual source with you to see if we can get a consensus around if any of them are appropriate, and I'm fine continuing to work on the article to make sure none of the claims go beyond what's explicitly advanced by the sources. But if you have problems with some of the sources in the section, it's best to tag the problems or reword the section yourself, not to just delete the section wholesale and say 'do it better or leave it off'. Gradual improvement is how Wikipedia works. Wieno (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand your point at all - you're saying that it's OK to leave negative information about the subject in the article, pending better sourcing? I'm afraid I don't agree with that at all. Anyone can challenge any material added to any article using unreliable sources, and that is not subject to consensus of any type. If you want to call an RFC on that, feel free. I don't think you'll find a surfeit of editors willing to go along with the idea that a twit, a blog and and an article that doesn't even mention the school can be used to source a controversy. Especially when there's a fair amount of synthesis involved. Instead, you should be concentrating on finding the reliable sources you feel do exist out there, which would make all this moot. §FreeRangeFrogcroak06:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
