Talk:Eduniversal

Notability

Dear XIIIfromTOKYO,

I've already answered you on the notability: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panth%C3%A9on-Assas_University&diff=709851841&oldid=709843179 I copy again a list of secondary sources:

Its former name is SMBG and nearly all public universities and private schools refer to it, as well as newspapers, some examples among a lot : www.univ-tours.fr/actualites/classement-eduniversal-smbg-notre-licence-droit-classee-2--496237.kjsp , http://www.iae.univ-poitiers.fr/fr/classement-smbg-2016-six-masters-et-deux-licences-de-liae-de-poitiers-bien-classes , http://www.u-pec.fr/pratiques/universite/actualites/25-masters-de-l-upec-dans-le-classement-smbg-2015-666164.kjsp , http://www.ut-capitole.fr/formations/nos-diplomes/masters/classement-smbg-2015-2-masters-ut1-classes-485006.kjsp , https://www.u-cergy.fr/fr/universite/actualites/classement-eduniversal.html , http://www.formation-continue.dauphine.fr/les-actualites/details-dune-actualite/article/lemba-dauphine-dans-le-top-10-des-mba-eduniversal.html , http://www.decision-achats.fr/Thematique/decideurs-achats-1035/Breves/classement-SMBG-est-seul-classement-que-regardent-etudiants-252500.htm

Please stop these disruptive edits. Thanks!

--Launebee (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Launebee,

take the time to actually read what other contributors write.

"notability [relies on]reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it".

Not a single of your link is independant, or provide a significant coverage. Only universities happy to say that some ranking gave them a good mark. And that's all.

If you persist, I will simply start the deletion process.

XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The universities are indepedent from this entity and the newspaper is independant from this journal. You want more press coverage of Eduniversal / SMBG? Here:

Plenty, plenty, plenty more if you want... And you have the biggest media here: Le Monde, Le figaro, Le parisien...

Please do some researchs before putting a banner, thanks!

--Launebee (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... and not a single one of these articles is about Eduniversal. They sometimes mention it.

Still, one of them is interesting as the methods of this company are judged as "'embarrassing (embarrassante)" "against all of our principles (totalement contraire à nos principes)", "illegal (une rupture d’égalité de traitement)", and "start to regret it already, it's really outrageous (commence déjà à le regretter c’est vraiment scandaleux)" [1]

So, we know the methods, so we should be careful, as we now know what could happen here if this company start to use them on Wikipedia

. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing the meaning of what is on the links you give. One website offering help for students in order to get accepted in some degrees is critisized here - by some in one article -, not at all Eduniversal as a whole nor its ranking. Eduversal / SMBG is well-known in the whole French academic environment, press included, there is nothing shocking to hear that one of his service is critisezd. Stop confusing people please. --Launebee (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are charging students for a service that is otherwise free. They don't help them at all.

The last article explains the methods used by this company.

Again, the other articles are not about the ranking, they just mention it. Being mentionned in a press article doesn't grant you any form of notability. XIIIfromTOKYO (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, helping in exchange of money of course, it's what I meant. It's not "the methods used by this company" but only one activity, different from the rankings, which is critized. (And it's not even its activity but the one of its subsidiary, so it is not even really this company.)

If Le Monde, Le Figaro, Le Parisien, L'Étudiant, Studyrama, etc., all refer to Eduniversal rankings to know the quality of a degree and have confidence in them, then it's a serious company.

--Launebee (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]