Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Ten business schools

:{{la|Big Ten business schools}}

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League business schools. Grouping a set of mainly graduate business schools by their undergraduate sports league affiliation does not make sense. While the term "Big Ten Conference" is colloquially used to refer to the schools collectively, doing so to group individual parts of those institutions, especially graduate schools, does not have any significance or notability. You would not have a list of Pac-10 medical schools. Jadunne (talk) 07:43, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep per my comments [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Ivy_League_business_schools&action=historysubmit&diff=409324821&oldid=409323834 here]. —Bill Price (nyb) 07:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - I've looked at Bill's comment ref'd above. That only reinforces my belief that this list is arbitrary and unencyclopedic. We regularly run the risk of over classification and this is a prime example. This has the added confidence of not having any real sources that backup the same qualifications that the article purports, and to any extent there is a "big ten" business schools, it's not exactly concurrent with this article. There are too many issues of OR and neutrality that make this kind or article unnecessary. Shadowjams (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Big Ten is solely a grouping for athletics, and the business schools have no relevance in this way. Reywas92^Talk 18:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment The discussion at the virtually identical case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ivy League business schools is proceeding very differently from this one and attracting different participants. (I'm the only person to weigh in on both cases so far, not counting the nominator.) If it's okay to use "Ivy League", it should be okay to use "Big Ten"; if it's not okay to use "Big Ten", it shouldn't be okay to use "Ivy League". —Bill Price (nyb) 01:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: The common usage for Big 10 is athletic in nature making this grouping unworkable. (Please note I have voted the opposite way for Ivy League intentionally because, although technically an awful football league, the common usage "Ivy League" has lost the sports conotation.)RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment If someone can demonstrate that corporate employers hold a "Big Ten business school" in the same regard that they do for an "Ivy League business school", the "what works for one works for the other" argument would be persuasive. I'm not persuaded. "Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth... Purdue? Thanks, we'll let you know our decision..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 22:29, January 23, 2011

::I have no idea how that is related to the discussion at hand and it just seems elitist. ElKevbo (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Keep as a useful grouping of institutions similar to one another in many ways (which is why they're in the same conference). It doesn't really matter if Wikipedia editors think it makes sense as the institutions have chosen - for many decades - to group themselves this way and it's widely used by many others. It's also not an issue of prestige or even some specializations of the institutions being as prestigious as their counterparts at other institutions. And the idea that readers might confuse "Big Ten" as implying a ranking is ridiculous. ElKevbo (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::: Still comes down to notability. This search [http://www.google.com/#q=%22big+ten+business+school%22&hl=en&nfpr=1&prmd=ivns&ei=3u48TfuKGcjYgQePsfHjCA&start=10&sa=N&fp=bf4dfb09526898d2] didn't turn up much of a sign that anyone considers the programs at midwestern universities as being "Big Ten business schools", no matter how useful or "okay" it might be for us to call them that. If someone can demonstrate that these are thought of as a group, great. Mandsford 20:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

::::In all honesty, I'd be somewhat okay deleting this article iff the template and category for this group is kept. Wiping out all grouping of these schools as Big Ten schools would be unacceptable. ElKevbo (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::I agree with you here. The thing I am primarily opposed to is the notion that "Big Ten business school" is somehow invalid or useless as a grouping. If this nomination were reframed as "the concept of a 'Big Ten business school' isn't inherently notable enough to justify a list article, so it should be demoted to only a navigation template," I would be more inclined to agree with it. —Bill Price (nyb) 01:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

• Weak keep - My gut reaction was that this grouping is nonnotable, but on second thought I could see a shred of notability. Although the Big Ten is generally considered to be just an athletic conference (unlike the Ivy League, which has broader significance), I've occasionally encountered situations where the Big Ten schools and the SEC schools were treated as groups of peer universities for non-athletic purposes such as comparisons of faculty salaries and graduation rates. I also have encountered people who were intimidated at the idea of attending graduate school at a "Big Ten school" after being undergraduates in less-well-regarded state universities (both second-tier universities in the Big Ten states and state schools in other parts of the country). That caused me to think that there might be some notability to a list like this one. However, the clincher for me is the discovery that U.S. News and World Report has actually fooled around with ranking universities within their athletic conferences.[http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/articles/2009/03/03/college-rankings-by-athletic-conference] and some of the Big Ten universities themselves actually have compared their business school rankings to those of other Big Ten universities (see [http://www.bus.wisc.edu/pressroom/category/rankings University of Wisconsin press release] and [http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/rankings/2010/100125KrannertFTrank.html Purdue press release]). That discovery leads me to conclude that the topic of "Big Ten business schools" is a notable one, albeit weakly so. --Orlady (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Delete It doesn't even list Harvard or Sloane. Nor does it include top business schools outside of the United States. It's a list based on POV.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

::Why in the world would this article include Harvard or Sloan??? They're not in the Big Ten. ElKevbo (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

:::I can't tell where the user is from, but s/he may not be aware of the Big Ten being a sports league. --Orlady (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

::::The title of the article is "Big Ten business schools". It is a misleading title.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 21:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::You'll have to take that up with the Big Ten. But it might be challenging because they've used that name for many decades.

:::::But seriously, is the objection here really the name? Would you (and others) like us to change the name to "Business schools in the Big Ten" or something similar? That seems reasonable and fairly easy. ElKevbo (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

::::::Doh! The article contained no mention of the Big Ten Conference (other than the template at the bottom of the page). Apparently the reader was just supposed to know. I made a bare-bones edit to add that missing detail. --Orlady (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

:::::::This is what I meant when I said the title, "Big Ten business schools" is misleading. The "Big Ten", although an American sports conference, has connotations of being, well, the big (or top) ten, which these schools aren't. The template conflates business schools of widely varying caliber merely because of a shared sports history. If the title was changed to something like "Business schools in the Big Ten sports conference" or some title like that which clearly spelled out just how these business schools are related (and it's definitely not that they're similar business schools, because they're not), I'd be entirely fine with the template and would switch from delete to keep. Banaticus (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::: Comment If the title of the article is changed to "Big Ten Conference business schools" I'll change my vote to Keep. But from a global perspective "Big Ten business schools" is not what it says it is.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 18:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.