Talk:Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|The content of List of Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad Alumni was merged into Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
Respecting an encyclopaedia - Name+Location
In my experience at IIMA, it's always been IIMA or IIM-A, never IIM,A. The IIMs are different institutes, with different curriculi, different ethos and different teaching/management styles. They have distinct boards as well. IIM,A suggests the Ahmedabad branch of one organization called IIM. That's just not the case, the only real common factor between the IIMs is the entrance examination (JEE), besides the directors' meetings (Ad-hoc) and some linked alumnii and special interest groups (non-official).
If I remember correctly, the page is taken AS-IS from the news release after my batch's recruitment process, which is also recycled in various promotional material. It makes too many unsubstantiated and opinion statements (For ex., you cannot show a trend in people rejecting jobs abroad, or a trend in people staying outside the recruitment process to start schools/consultancies/etc. based on 2 years' data. C'mon, even the communications department would've kicked my ass if I'd tried to draw a trend based on 2 years' data in the Written Analysis & Communication (WAC) paper, let alone the marketing or eco profs! This is just not right.
This page should be about the campus, history & culture. There is a lot that should be added, think WAC runs, SIGs & Societies etc. etc. I won't just preach, I'll do it over the weekend as and when time permits.
p.s. - I am an alumnii of IIM Ahmedabad, batch of 2005
Correction to your note above: The common entrance test for IIMs is CAT and not 'JEE' as you have mentioned. JEE is for IITs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It's "Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad"
... and not "Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad". The word "Ahmedabad" forms part of the name, and there is no comma that separates it from "Indian Institute of Management".
- I researched the above statement a little bit and this is the best response so far from my classmate at IIM Lucknow.
Is it Infosys Banagalore & Infosys Chennai or Infosys, Banagalore & Infosys, Chennai? The IIM is estd by the govt of India and each location gets its management and freedom to operate within a certain guidelines. But each location is an IIM. If you look at the official address, it says:
IIM, Prabandh Nagar, Off. Sitapur Road, Lucknow-226 013.
Therefore, the name is IIM & you are free to put or not put commas when you add the location name to identify the excact institute. The rules of English grammar tend to agree with Mr.Dole and say that you should put a comma.
I beg to differ with the above statement. For both Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad and Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, the location is a part of the name of the institute, so there should not be a comma after the 'Management' (I'm not sure how it is for IIM Lucknow). The analogy with Infosys is not a good one, because in that case, Bangalore or Chennai denotes the place, and is not a part of the name of the company.
- I think the comma should return.
- doles 13:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I believe that the name used by the entities themselves should be used. At least in this case, it is without the comma.Vinay84 (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The standard notations are "Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad", "IIM Ahmedabad" or "IIMA". Refer IIMA website - this is the protocol followed there. The comma is not used. Vastrapur (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Moreover, statistics about placements (though fancy) should not reflect in an encyclopedia. They are often inflated and details are not openly available to outsiders. Sbohra 10:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with foord.. some of the sections are not very encyclopaedic.. --Rev.bayes 20:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
MR Foord what u exactly mean when you use the word "promotional". Would mentioning Everest as highest peak in the world also tantamount to promotion???--220.127.116.11 16:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- I endorse 18.104.22.168's views. IIMA is the best business school in India. , (read the salaries offered part),
, , . --Andy123(talk) 17:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that the article's style sounds promotional. -Mardus 03:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely on the NPOV. Words like `excellent`, `awe-inspiring` and so on aren't objective, neutral ways of describing this University. I'll start fixing this soon, unless people have a clear explanation as to how this fits the NPOV criteria. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I moved the entrance image upwards, so that it would be easier to discern section edit links.
-Mardus 03:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Where are the citations? Why does the page 'admire' IIMA? Facts only please. This looks like a publicity page of IIMA - good school it could be but this is an encyclopedia page that looks like being 'used'. Effectively the page is tarnishing reputation of the school. This is not a page on IIM-server, its' a community-page where you have responsibility of not advertising. People editing this page should understand seriousness of it and edit the page asap to make it encyclopedic. Check this to see what I mean : Harvard Business School
This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Foojzi (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC) It is not advertisement. In fact it merely represents facts & figures from numerous reputed surveys & agencies.
Academic boosterism and unreferenced material
I am in the process of a major rework of the article, and am going to remove almost all unreferenced claims. Kindly provide reliable sources to support statements mentioned within the article. Some sources are reliably provided. However, it's important that you confirm that the sources satisfy our guidelines too. Please write to me on my talk page for any clarifications or assistance. Kind regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Copy vio concerns
I have removed huge amounts of material apparently copy pasted from the Internet. It'll take me around a couple of days to check whether the material on the net was copied from our site, or vice versa. Till then, kindly use reliable sources to add your own material. Wifione ....... Leave a message 16:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed the following from the list of Alumni. The reason is that per WP:NLIST one needs to demonstrate notability for every entry. The sources provided are not enough to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:GNG. I don't see how enough material can be added to satisfy these requirements, so please write an article about them before adding them again.
- Piyush Gupta, Chief Executive Officer, DBS Bank
- Ivan Menezes, President, North America and Chairman, Asia Pacific, Latin America & Caribbean, Diageo 
- Shikha Sharma, Chief Executive Officer, Axis Bank
- Muhandes, I think it is okay to add entries to the list if notability can be established via secondary sources. And at least the first and third entries in the above list seem notable to me, though the third one needs a good secondary source in addition to the company webpage. I think Gupta and Sharma should be added back, with additional references for Sharma. Aurorion (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I am not going to argue this, but in my opinion a singular secondary source is not enough for WP:BIO. I am not claiming the person is not notable, but demonstrating that they are is impossible within the confined space of an alumni list. The place to demonstrate notability is an article about the person. While I wont remove it again (I'll simply remove the page from my watchlist instead) other editors are bound to remove the entry if there is no article.--Muhandes (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
- I do not have an opinion either way, but I would like to note that this guideline Wikipedia:UNIGUIDE#Article structure recommends that alumni section is written in prose rather than a list.--Anbu121 (talk me) 04:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Talk / discuss before Edit warring.
Talk please. The present article gives UNDUE weightage and placement, so needs adjustment of content (cruft), and placement of the controversial "Plagiaraism" section to the stable (preferred) version. 2001:1640:5:0:0:0:3:BA (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)