This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles 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.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hospitals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hospitals 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.HospitalsWikipedia:WikiProject HospitalsTemplate:WikiProject HospitalsHospital 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 Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
I think the whole section should be removed. Almost all of the sites doing the rankings are unreliable or non-notable or are inclined to be biased because they take money for registering students. If some of the sites are notable, (probably few or none), then what they say may deserve a mention in prose somewhere else in the article. If there are several, we could consider restoring the section, adding only quality items. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've boldly removed the entire section per the above paragraph. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The user has restored the section again. I think it is inappropriate for the reasons I stated above. I would like other views to avoid edit warring over this. Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
