The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. Baseball,Baby! ^{balls•strikes} 19:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new discussion is necessary. I still feel that this page represents nothing more than academic boosterism; it would be more useful as a page directing readers to the individual school pages. Nothing really notable links to the page, either. AaronS 16:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Edit: I notified interested parties of this AfD, so they will hopefully have a chance to add to the discussion. --AaronS 18:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic article - which is actually pretty decent. WilyD 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agree with WilyD. —ExplorerCDT 17:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, merging any useful content into Ivy League. There is nothing (no precedent, no citations of common usage, etc.) establishing "Ivy League business schools" as a topic any more coherent than "Chemistry Ph.D. programs at universities founded in the 1870s". Even the most prestige-oriented of the rankings themselves don't break these schools out into a separate category. Wikipedia has a persistent problem with the creation of ill-justified articles on "Ivy League" plus X, where X can apparently be anything at all. Most of these articles -- definitely including this one -- ought to be folded into a paragraph or two in the article on the Ivy League, as that's the most interest I could imagine them having for any reader. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That analogy is, of course, false. Ivy League is a very different concept from Universities founded in the 1870s, and Business schools are not just programmes. A valid analogy might be Religiously affiliated colleges at Canadian Universities - but Schools of the 1870s fails because it's not a cohesive group, whereas Ivy League is. WilyD 18:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My analogy was, of course, a bit hyperbolic. But after looking over the article again, I can't see an article, with a coherent topic, anywhere. I see a lot of ranking-cruft and two short paragraphs under "History" that would fit well into the Ivy League article. Those claiming that this is a coherent self-contained topic might note that two Ivy League universities do not even have business schools. -- Rbellin|Talk 18:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And not every American president has had someone take a shot at them. But it still has a coherent self-contained article. WilyD 18:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • COMMENT: Agree with WilyD, again. Also, this article is far more worthwhile than say the article on sister school relationships between the residential colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. —ExplorerCDT 18:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please per wilyd the article is nice and sourced Yuckfoo 18:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why would this list be more notable than say, Pac-10 business schools which would include Stanford, Berkeley, Southern Cal, UCLA, Washington, and Oregon? Lazybum 19:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that I've heard of the PAC-10, but if France didn't have an article, would the correct action be to delete Germany or to make an article for France? WilyD 19:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • France and Germany are infinitely more important than a loose association of business schools. Lazybum 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • France and Germany are only finitely more important than an association of business schoools, but that's neither here nor there. If the absence of article A is sufficient in one case to argue for the deletion of article B, what changes in my hypothetical example? Is it somehow a strawman? As I understand it, it's merely "If an article with validity level X doesn't exist, we should delete all other articles of validity level X" - what nuance have I missed? WilyD 19:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, if their importance is in doubt. If there isn't a list of Big-10 molecular biology programs, then there shouldn't be one of Ivy League molecular biology programs. The only reason that the articles on France and Germany should survive are their sheer importance. And you're overvaluing the concept of Ivy League. You are presuming that "Ivy League is a very different concept from Universities founded in the 1870s". This is not true in case of the business schools. All of them (except Wharton) were founded in the 20th Century. Even the earliest ones are contemporaries of other important schools such as MIT Sloan and NYU Stern. There is nothing historical or operational that distinguishes the Ivy League business schools as a whole from the other good business schools. Lazybum 19:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand what you mean by "if their importance is in doubt" - so if someone passes WP:BIO, but is not that important (say, an MLB player with a short career), and another person of similar importance doesn't have an article, we should delete the first? The business schools are not the same as programmes - and they're not divorced from their parent institutions. WilyD 20:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your example is a non-issue. WP:BIO explicitly states that "Sportspeople/athletes who have played in a fully professional league" generally deserve their own article. There is no such standard for a group of programs associated with an athletic conference. Actually, anything associated with such a convoluted category would be a likely subject for AfD. And while I agree that no program is divorced from its parent institutions, it generally is divorced from whatever conference or group the institution is associated with. Do the Ivy League business schools have exchange or collaboration programs that are not found between, say, Harvard Business and MIT Sloan, or Columbia Business and NYU? If the Ivy League business schools do coordinate with one another in exclusion of other comparable business schools, then the group is notable and deserves an entry. If not, the group is simply unnotable. Lazybum 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The whole argument you presented (as far as I understood) relied only upon the presence of another article. It didn't address the merits of this article whatsoever. Notability isn't a criterion for deletion anyways, except where people are too polite to say "This is spam" (i.e. WP:CORP, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC) and use it as a euphamism instead. As for co-ordinated action, I don't see the argument - lots of uncoordinated activities that form a pattern are worthy of articles, i.e. Imperialism in Asia WilyD 21:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you read what I wrote above, you'll see that I did address the merits (or lack thereof) of this article. And I'm sorry, notability IS a criterion for deletion. To quote WP:N, "Articles are deleted daily on grounds of notability, and this has been common practice for over a year now." As for the analogy with Imperialism in Asia — Well, if those Ivy League business schools did fight one another like the Japanese, Russian, American, and British imperial forces did in Asia, then the group does deserve its own article. Lazybum 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • • If you read WP:N, you'll discover that's neither a policy or a guideline. Articles are never really deleted on grounds of notability, they're deleted because they're spam or vanity, but we're too polite to say (or don't want the arguments). In areas where spam isn't a problem (science, math, arts, history) notability is never used as a criterion for deletion, because they don't get spammed. WilyD 02:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violent crime and suicide at Ivy League universities for a recent example of Ivy League-related "spam," if you want to call it that. -- Rbellin|Talk 02:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The schools are referred to collectively enough to justify exploring them as a group. And while it's not the issue here, "Ivy League business schools" are collectively referred to in various fiction and non-fiction sources, and justify exploration. ""Pac-10 business schools" doesn't seem to get as many hits. This article is sourced and provides good information. I see no reason to delete it. JDoorjam Talk 20:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It should probably be kept, but it needs something like criticism - right now it seems choosy with its information... RN 21:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and especially Rbellin. If this article is allowed to exist, than 50 more articles will sprout up tomorrow on "Ivy League __________". This is not a good thing, as no other groups of schools have these pages, or will be allowed to have these pages. I suggest that an article pointing out top business schools in the country could be created instead of this. Fopkins | Talk 23:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - By the way, the original author and key contributor to this article was GO WHARTON. Sure does seem like a brag post to me. Fopkins | Talk 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WilyD. These universities are prestigious and referred to as a group. SliceNYC 02:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 1st nomination result, WilyD, ExplorerCDT, Yuckfoo, JDoorjam, and SliceNYC. --HResearcher 05:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. How many of the article's supporters are not Ivy League students or alumni? --AaronS 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least one. SliceNYC 15:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two. I went to Rutgers, and have a deep-set case of Princeton envy. So until Princeton accepts my grad school application (applying in a few months), I'm not an Ivy League student or alumnus. —ExplorerCDT 06:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep its sourced.  ALKIVAR™ 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep mostly per JDoorjam and WilyD. No comment to AaronS.  ;) RFerreira 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A well sourced article on information that could be quite useful to users. This is the exact type of article that could be seen relevant to users. Nlsanand 18:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.